2016-06-07 09:03, Neil Horman: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:53:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-06-07 08:04, Neil Horman: > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:57:42AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2016-05-31 09:57, Neil Horman: > > > > > +++ b/buildtools/Makefile > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > > > > > +# BSD LICENSE > > > > > +# > > > > > +# Copyright(c) 2010-2014 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved. > > > > > +# All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > I really think it is a strange copyright for a new empty file. > > > > > > > Its not empty, It lists the subdirectories to build. And given that the > > > DPDK is > > > licensed under multiple licenses (BSD/GPL/LGPL), it introduces confusion > > > to not > > > call out the license in a specific file, file size is really irrelevant > > > to that. > > > > Neil, please take a drink :) > > I'm not talking about license but about copyright. > > Don't you think it's strange to put "2010-2014 Intel" copyright on top of > > the few lines you wrote? > > > Ah, yes, I copied the file, so the copyright years are wrong, so that should > be > fixed.
Not only the years, the copyright holder should be you or your company. > That said, you asked if it was strange to put a copyright on an empty file, > and > the answer is no, because its not empty, and it nees a copyright for clarity > :) Of course, yes. > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/mk/rte.buildtools.mk > > > > > > > > I'm sorry I really do not agree it is a good practice to create a new > > > > makefile type just for a new directory. > > > > My opinion is that you should use and improve rte.hostapp.mk to make > > > > it usable for possible other host apps. > > > > > > > I am so exhausted by this argument. > > > > > > They are the same file Thomas. I'm not sure how you don't see that. I've > > > explained to you that they are, with the exception of whitespace noise, > > > identical. buildtools is a better nomenclature because it more closely > > > describes what is being built at the moment. The only reason we still > > > have > > > hostapp is because you didn't remove it when you removed the applications > > > that, > > > in your own words from the commit log, are "useless". The argument that > > > we > > > should keep the build file, and its naming convention on the off chance > > > that > > > someone might use it in the future really doesn't hold water with me, at > > > least > > > not to the point that, when we have something that duplicates its > > > function we > > > should do anything other than take the path of least resistance to make > > > it work. > > > I'm not sure how you expected anyone to know there is a makefile in place > > > in the > > > DPDK to build local application, when there are currently no applications > > > in > > > place, but asking people to use it after the fact is really just the > > > height of > > > busywork. If it was already building other utilities, I'd feel > > > differently, but > > > given that its just sitting there, a vestigual file, makes this all just > > > silly. > > > > > > But clearly, this isn't going to be done until I do what you want, > > > regardless of > > > what either of us think of it, So I'll make the change. > > > > You can keep it as is if you find someone else to say that having a makefile > > template named and specific to only the buildtools usage is fine. > > And no, it is not identical to rte.hostapp.mk. > > But I was probably not clear enough: > > I do not like rte.hostapp.mk. I just like its explicit name. > > I see the same issue in rte.hostapp.mk and rte.buildtools.mk: they should be > > build in the app/ subdir like any other app. > > > > So my suggestion is to replace rte.hostapp.mk with your implementation in > > a separate patch with the build path changed to app/ instead of hostapp/ or > > buildtools/. > > > Soo, I'm confused now. You don't want rte.buildtools.mk, and you don't really > want rte.hostapp.mk, you want a different makefile, that just builds to the > /app > subdirectory? The apps and examples use rte.app.mk to build a DPDK app. Here you make a standard app, without DPDK dependency, to run on the host. So you cannot use rte.app.mk. I think rte.hostapp.mk is not a so bad name (I have no better one). About the build directory, the app/ one looks OK, no need to put a reference to buildtools which is just the user of this makefile. Except these considerations, the content of your makefile is probably good.
