[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/7] Add hierarchical support to make install

[Neil Horman]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:00:08AM +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/22/2015 10:34 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 09/22/2015 11:00 AM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> >> Actually, the current "install" directive means: install all stuff
> >> required to build a project for the specified targets (example:
> >> x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc).
> >>
> >> If we just do "make install T=${target}", the target is installed
> >> into the current SDK source. Adding DESTDIR will install the binary
> >> DPDK in a new directory. Example:
> >>
> >>   make -j32 T="*-native-linuxapp-gcc" DESTDIR=/tmp/binary-dpdk install
> >>
> >> In both cases, the result can be used to build an application (like
> >> the one found in examples) using the the DPDK framework. So, the current
> >> "install" directive should be understood as "install binary sdk".
> > 
> > I know. What it now does is the very problem being addressed :)
> > 
> > The current behavior is just so alien to the rest of the OSS world it
> > actually creates an extra barrier of entry to the project. Besides that,
> > it forces people to manually do the cp/mv dance instead - witness
> > %install in pkg/dpdk.spec. It also unnecessarily rebuilds stuff when it
> > should be just copying.
> 
> I agree, I was just trying to summarize what the "install" does
> right now, I don't say it's the proper behavior.
> 
> 
> >>  From what I understand, what Mario wants to add is a "install runtime
> >> libraries" directive.
> > 
> > Its not limited to runtime libraries, it installs headers and such too.
> > The point, AFAICS, is have "make install" do what people actually expect
> > it to do - a system-wide installation. Principle of least surprise and all.
> > 
> >>
> >> I agree that using H=1 is maybe not the clearest solution. What about
> >> renaming the "install" directive to:
> >>    - install-sdk
> >>    - install-runtime
> >>
> >> It would help to keep the current behavior of "install" for some time,
> >> marking it as deprecated.
> > 
> > Nothing wrong with having separate targets for installing runtime- and
> > sdk-specific bits, but thats not the point here.
> 
> Hmm I think it is.
> 
> My question is: do we want to keep the current install behavior for
> compatibility or not? Should we consider this makefile directive as
> an API? People may use it, and we should at least ask us it it should
> follow a sort of API deprecation process like we do for the code.
> That's why I talked about 2 new commands and deprecate the old one.
> 

No, build requirements and mechanisms should not be considered part of the API.
There might be other reasons to keep them consistent (and there may be here),
but we don't need to proect the build mechanism, as API is meant to allow
backward compatibility for applications, and the build details are orthogonal to
that.
Neil

> Regards,
> Olivier
>