[dpdk-dev] dpdk proposal installation process

[Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:57 AM
> To: Panu Matilainen
> Cc: Olivier MATZ; Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] dpdk proposal installation process
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:55:41AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 10/21/2015 10:15 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > Nice, this sounds like the best of both worlds.
> >
> > >
> > >>>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.
> >
> > Yes, just stick /usr/lib there and be done with it, lib64 is not a
> > good default for these very reasons.
> >
> > >>>-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.
> >
> > Yeah, PREFIX support would be nice, and defaulting that to /usr/local
> > would be the right thing.
> >
> > 	- Panu -
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Olivier
> > >
> >
> 
> Can I throw a completely different suggestion into the mix?
> 
> Can we make use of the fact that make config creates a directory called
> "build"
> by default. Then running "make" alone in that directory does the expected
> behaviour of a compile of the whole sdk. How about having "make install" in
> the build directory behave like a generic "make install" call for other
> packages?
> 
> I'm imagining the following sequence of steps to install:
> 
> 	./configure --machine=[default|native|other]
> 		# configure is a simple script that just calls "make config T=..."
> 	cd build
> 	make
> 	make install
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> /Bruce

Hi Guys,

Thank you so much for your feedback, about your last comments,
I understood the next:

1)
-"make install" using "T" variable:
This command will use a rule for the current behaviour called "mbuild"

-"make install" without "T" variable:
This command will install everything: headers, libraries, modules, apps, docs, and
sdk files (config files, make files, scripts and examples).

2) About variables, you rigth, KMOD_DIR sounds better than KERNEL_DIR,
and LIB_DIR should be /usr/lib by default.

3)
-To use a "prefix variable"
-This prefix variable will be "/usr/local" by default.
-This prefix variable can be overridden.

Example:
$(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX)/$(INCLUDE_DIR)

4) What do you think about the Bruce's proposal?