2016-06-07 09:49, Neil Horman: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:24:55PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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. > > > > Sooo....you do actually want to just use the hostapp makefile, because you > like > the name, and don't like mine, and you want to just dump the output into the > same app directory that all the dpdk examples get written to, because it looks > ok to you?
No. Your Makefile is fine. I just suggest to rename it to rte.hostapp.mk. The examples are not built in the app/ directory. But you can do what you want. I'm just suggesting. By the way, please use checkpatch.sh.
