2016-02-12 16:59, Ferruh Yigit: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-02-12 14:31, Panu Matilainen: > > > On 01/28/2016 04:31 PM, Bernard Iremonger wrote: > > > > add config/defconfig_x86_64-default-linuxapp-gcc file. > > > > > > There was a related discussion back in March, see > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/014626.html > > > > > > I intended to go with that and submit patch(es) but the amount of > > > duplication and new files gets mind-numbing when you make them for all > > > existing targets. In other words, this approach doesn't scale. > > > > > > Thomas, I remember seeing a plan to include a configure script in DPDK > > > many times in past months. Do you have something specific in mind, ie > > > actually use autoconf or just a custom hand-written script named > > > "configure" that roughly resembles autoconf configure or...? > > > > A script named "configure" looks fine. > > Bruce introduced the idea of calling "make config" in the script: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026256.html > > Maybe it is a good start to move forward. > > I think we have to choose between a script and a kconfig approach giving > > the menus GUIs as bonus. > > > Another thing kconfig can help is to resolve dependencies, harder to make > this with a > script. Currently we already have dependencies, although not complex, and > resolved > within makefile.
Dependencies are not so well resolved currently. We have internal and external dependencies. The internal ones would be better resolved with kconfig or a script. The external dependencies are often managed by autotools but I'm sure we prefer have a clean script instead of this beast ;) > I believe correct place to solve them is a configuration tool so that > makefiles or > source files can be clean. I think a configuration tool/script must help to make a working config. But do you really think we should remove the gatekeepers in Makefiles?
