On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:21:02PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Adding a soname and a semi-arbitrary version does not fix the fundamental
> problems:
>
> Since the library lumps together everything in DPDK, you'd have to bump its
> version whenever any of the individual libraries bumps its vers
Re-sending this unsigned since the ML rejected my signed email.
-1 from Ubuntu without further discussion since it will break us. Please
don't commit this patch yet.
I don't understand why we must have the complexity of so many shared
libraries. From a distribution packaging perspective, all I se
ctors for PMD's at the very least mean that
> every
> pmd will get paged in weather you want it or not using the combined library.
> Individual libraries let you dynamically load them (via dlopen). I think the
> same is true of several other facets of dpdk.
What's the
Hi,
We?re looking at packaging DPDK in Ubuntu. We?d like to discuss upstream
changes to better integrate DPDK into Linux distributions. Here?s a
summary of what we need:
1) Define one library ABI (soname and sover) that we can use instead of the
split build.
2) Fix #includes so we don't ha
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 04:18:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > First, it would be easier for us to ship a single binary package that
> > ships a single shared library to cover all of DPDK that library
> > consumers might need, rather than having it split up as you do. I
> > unders
5 matches
Mail list logo
