[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/15 v2] makefiles: Fixed -share command line option error

[Neil Horman]

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:22:17PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2014-05-02 07:09, Neil Horman:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:42:12AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2014-04-16 09:51, Neil Horman:
> > > > The shared libraries built with the current makefile set produce static
> > > > libraries rather than actual shared objects.  This is due to several
> > > > missing options that are required to correctly build shared objects
> > > > using ld, as well as a mis-specified -share option (which should be
> > > > -shared). Switching to the use of CC rather than LD and fixing the
> > > > -shared option corrects these problems and builds the DSOs correctly.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com>
> > > 
> > > Applied for version 1.6.0r2.
> > 
> > So, I just went and looked at 1.6.0r2 and noted that you applied this patch,
> > but the rest of the series is still missing.  This is what I was talking
> > about earlier when I said you weren't applying patch series atomically.  It
> > makes it impossible to have any clue what the upstream development head is
> > going to look like.  On top of that, since you're clearly integrating other
> > changes ahead of this, theres every likelyhood the rest of my v5 series
> > won't apply.
> > 
> > the v5 series has sat out here for a few weeks now without comment. If there
> > aren't any objections to it, apply it.  Whats the problem here?  I'm not
> > going to package the DPDK until this series (or the functionality it
> > offers) is in place.
> 
> This patch is clearly an important fix. So I took it for release 1.6.0r2.
> The other patches of the serie are enhancements which will be in 1.7.0.
> 
> The goal is to change the integration model.
> Now we'll stop integrating enhancements and big changes when first release 
> candidate is out. Then it will be clear that only fixes and mandatory changes 
> will be integrated in the last part of the release cycle.
> 
> I hope you agree we're improving the workflow.

Apologies to you Thomas, and the rest of the 6wind list.  He just explained to
me that patch applications ni 1.6.0r2 aren't inherited by 1.7.0 so the entire
patch series will need to be reapplied to 1.7.0.  The workflow is atypical to
me, but I should have seen that, given there is no master branch.  Sorry for the
outburst.
Neil

> -- 
> Thomas
>