[dpdk-dev] dpdk proposal installation process

[Olivier MATZ]

Hi Mario,

On 10/20/2015 11:17 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:21:00AM +0000, Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>       Good day, this is a proposal in order to improve the dpdk install process,
>> I would like to know your point of view about the next points according to
>> previous conversations :) in order to create a new patches version.
>>
>> 1) I think the first thing that I have to be aware is "compatibility", the
>> new changes won't affect the current dpdk behaviour.

Yes. As I stated in a previous mail, I think nobody uses the current
"make install" without specifying T= as the default value is to build
and install for all targets.

My suggestion is:

- rename the previous "install" target. The name could probably
  be "mbuild" (for multiple builds). Other ideas are welcome.

- when "make install" is invoked with T= argument, call the mbuild
  target to have the same behavior than before. This compat layer
  could be removed in the future.

- when "make install" is invoked without T=, it installs the fhs.

>> 2) Create new makefile rules, these rules is going to install dpdk files in
>> default paths, however the linux distributions don't use the same paths for their
>> files, the linux distribution and the architecture can be factor for different
>> path as Panu commented in previous conversations, he is right, then all variables
>> could be overridden, the variables names for the user can be included in documentation.
>> Also an option could be a configuration file for paths, however I'm not sure.

I think having variables is ok.

>> 3) The default paths for dpdk in order to follow a hierarchy, however the variable
>> with those values can be overridden.
>>
>> -install-bin          --> /usr/bin.
>> -install-headers  --> /usr/include/dpdk
>> -install-lib           --> /usr/lib64

I remember Panu suggested to have /usr/lib by default.
I also think /usr/lib a better default value: some distributions
use /usr/lib for 64 bits libs, but we never have 32 bits libs in
/usr/lib64.

>> -install-doc         --> /usr/share/doc/dpdk
>> -install-mod        --> if RTE_EXEC_ENV=linuxapp then KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/extra/drivers/dpdk
>>                                 else KERNEL_DIR=/boot/modules).

I'm not sure KERNEL_DIR is the proper name. Maybe KMOD_DIR?

>> -install-sdk         --> /usr/share/dpdk and call install-headers ).
>> -install-fhs          --> call install-libraries, install-mod, install-bin and install-doc (maybe install-headers)
>>
>> 4) I'm going to take account all feedback about variables, paths etc for the new version :).
>>
>> Thank you so much for your help.
>>
>>
>> Mario.
> 
> Hi Mario,
> 
> that seems like a lot of commands to add - are they all individually needed?
> 
> In terms of where things go, should the "usr" part not a) be configurable via
> a parameter, and b) default to "/usr/local" as that's where user-installed
> software from outside the packaging system normally gets put.

A PREFIX variable would do the job.
About the default to /usr or /usr/local, I agree that /usr/local looks
more usual, and I don't think it's a problem for packaging as soon as
it can be overridden.


Regards,
Olivier