[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for dpdk files

[Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C]

Hi Bruce,

	First thank you for your help during this time, and you are right, the objective of this is try to have a more standard installation process, I have taken a look to your patches, and you rename targets as first step in order to improve the installation process, I have the same intentions, talking about my patch set, you can see different new targets in the makefile, this seem that is more complex, but the reason about it is for flexibility, you can install only relevant files for you that could be headers, libraries, makefiles, examples etc... in hierarchy paths by default and you can overridden these paths, however if you would like to install sdk files (install headers, makefiles, scripts,examples, tools and config files)  you can use "install-sdk" or if you would like to install runtime files (libraries, modules, app files, nic bind files and documentation) "install-fhs" will be enough :) 
I mean, it's no necessary to use all targets by separate. this behavior can be obtained if you do not use "T" variable, if you use it you can get the previous behaviour in dpdk, this is for compatibility reasons. thank you for your comments and if you have more questions about this feel free to contact me :) 


Thank you so much.
Mario.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:49 AM
> To: Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C
> Cc: Aaron Conole; dev at dpdk.org; Venegas Munoz, Jos C
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for dpdk files
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:25:39PM +0000, Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C wrote:
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> >
> > I have been working on series of patches in order to improve the
> > installation process of dpdk, I sent my first version at sep 18.
> >
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023761.html
> >
> > I have been received feedback from different developers as Olivier,
> > Bruce, Panu etc... and I have been taking note about it and I have
> > been improving the patches in each serie, at this moment I haven't
> > gotten a final answer, however I'm going to continue working. :)
> >
> > Mario.
> > Thanks.
> 
> Hi Mario,
> 
> it would be good if you could share your opinions of the patchset that Aaron
> linked to below, and how it might interact with or impact your patchset - or if
> you even think it's not worthwhile doing. There's been a worrying lack of
> comment on that thread!
> 
> On your patchset, I'm just not convinced that adding in a whole set of new
> make targets is the best way to go here. It seems more like putting an extra
> layer of complexity in without fixing the underlying problems [which to me is
> the fact of "make install" being used in a non-standard way.]
> 
> Regards,
> /Bruce
> 
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Aaron Conole [aconole at redhat.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:18 AM
> > To: Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Venegas Munoz, Jos C; Richardson, Bruce
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for
> > dpdk files
> >
> > Hi Mario,
> >
> > Mario Carrillo <mario.alfredo.c.arevalo at intel.com> writes:
> > > DPDK package lacks of a mechanism to install libraries, headers
> > > applications, kernel modules and sdk files to a file system tree.
> > > This patch set allows to install files based on the next
> > > proposal:
> > > http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-
> hierarchy.html
> >
> > I'm not sure what this patch holds, given the following proposal:
> >
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/027777.html
> >
> > -Aaron
> >