On Fri, 2017-08-18 at 09:35 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:25:36PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 16:10 +0200, Marco Varlese wrote: > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > > On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 10:51 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > Following on from previous RFC [http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/p > > > > atch > > > > /25104/] > > > > here is a second draft implementation for building DPDK with > > > > meson > > > > and > > > > ninja. While still not building all of DPDK, and needing patch > > > > cleanup so > > > > that patches don't overwrite previous work, it is more complete > > > > in > > > > many > > > > ways than the previous version and includes: > > > > > > > > * dynamic build configuration e.g. building pcap driver only if > > > > pcap is > > > > found, only build af_packet if the target is linux, and only > > > > building QAT > > > > and openssl crypto drivers if libcrypto is found > > > > * support for pmdinfo inside the PMDs(for shared builds) and > > > > binaries (for > > > > static builds) > > > > * generalized/standardized way of building libs and drivers, > > > > though > > > > the > > > > drivers code still needs generalization at the driver, rather > > > > than > > > > driver-class level. > > > > * support for having a pkgconfig file for DPDK on install, and > > > > helloworld > > > > and l2fwd can be built using the pkgconfig info (via make, > > > > not > > > > ninja) > > > > * support for library versions > > > > * an implementation for FreeBSD as well as Linux > > > > * all libraries are included in the build, as well as a number > > > > of > > > > NIC, > > > > crypto, and mempool drivers > > > > * the igb_uio kernel module is build via the kernel Kbuild > > > > system > > > > as part > > > > of a meson/ninja DPDK build > > > > > > This is really great to see. I do have one suggestion. > > > Would it be possible to version the libraries built by the build- > > > system > > > following the same version of the DPDK release? > > > > > > For instance, in DPDK 17.08 we currently have: > > > # objdump -p librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.1 |grep SONAME > > > SONAME librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.1 > > > > > > Would it make sense to instead have librte_pmd_ixgbe.so.17.08 > > > > > > I think it would help to facilitate the installation of multiple > > > DPDK > > > library > > > versions on the same system. > > > > > > For example, we could have the following scenario: > > > > > > 1) OpenVSwithc linked with version 17.02 of DPDK > > > 2) VPP linked with version 17.08 of DPDK > > > 3) DPDK 18.xx installed in the system for any cutting-edge > > > application > > > prototyping. > > > > > > Is this something which could be incorporated as part of this > > > work? > > > > Christian sent a patch a while ago, which was merged, to enable > > this in > > the current build system, it's the CONFIG_RTE_MAJOR_ABI option, we > > use > > it in Debian and Ubuntu for the reasons you mentioned. > > > > And if it's not been translated yet, I agree it's an important one. > > > > No, it's not translated yet - mainly for the reasons that I had > forgotten > it existed, and that there is a lot yet unported. > > General question: should this be the default or not? It looks to me > that > it should probably be, but what do others think? > > /Bruce
Well, to maintain backward compatibility, you might not want to have it on by default - it's the equivalent of declaring all ABIs compatibility broken on all releases, some users might not like that. For us distro maintainers it's very easy to enable. But I don't have a strong opinion either way - just thinking about consequences for others. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
