2017-03-28 09:58, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > > As follow-up to my own mail, for this specific library example, I > > > wouldn't look to remove it from DPDK anyway. Parsing ini files is fairly > > > trivial, so I think it's not a big deal to keep our own version and not > > > have an external dependency - especially since it's already there and not > > > a big maintenance burden. > > > > Removing this lib would not disable anything as it is used only by examples. > > I don't see what would be the issue. > > We just have to download the lib when building the example app. > > It can be done quite easily in the makefile. > > Thomas, more than 3 quarters of DPDK libs are only used by applications, is > this a reason to remove them? > > Also, I think the purpose of DPDK is to enable people to write applications, > not more libraries. Would you agree? We should make the life easier for the > application developers, not libraries. > > This library is an important utility for applications, similar to > librte_cmdline and others. I think it is not fair from your side to refer to > librte_cfgfile without any reference to librte_cmdline.
I agree Cristian. I was just writing another email about removing librte_cmdline: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/061777.html This thread was about librte_cfgfile. I hope you'll agree I am really fair :) It is really a scope question and should be managed by the techboard (CC). > > > For newer functionalty, we do need clear guidelines as to when it is > > > acceptable to add new dependencies to DPDK. I'd love to see us enable > > > the PCAP PMD by default, for instance, and I think Sergio has recently > > > proposed we also require libnuma on Linux. > > > > We won't include libpcap or libnuma. > > The only thing we should do is to make easier to view and enable > > dependencies.
