[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] reserve 'make install' for future use

[Thomas Monjalon]

2015-11-30 14:26, Panu Matilainen:
> On 11/27/2015 07:33 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-11-25 10:48, Panu Matilainen:
> >> On 11/24/2015 06:54 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:04:54PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>> 2015-11-06 12:57, Bruce Richardson:
> >>>>> So, any thoughts or comments on this? There has been lots of discussion in this
> >>>>> general area but nothing yet going into the release to try and improve the situation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are we just going to kick the problem down the road to the 2.3 release?
> >>>>
> >>>> I plan to check these patches in the coming days for an integration in 2.2.
> >>>>
> >>> Anything further on this?
> >>> Any thoughts from anyone else about this whole area of a saner build/install
> >>> system for DPDK and the various patches floating around.
> >>
> >> Well, it seems we wont have a sane "make install" in 2.2 yet, but this
> >> is at least a step in the right direction so +1 from me.
> >
> > Why is it a step in the right direction?
> 
> Right direction as in, everybody seems to agree we want "make install" 
> ultimately do the right thing. If we can't have it in 2.2 yet then a 
> preparatory step is better than not having it.

Yes sure.
We will have something in 2.2. The question is what :)

> > What have I missed?
> 
> Perhaps its me who has missed the fact that 2.2 is still open for these 
> kind of things.

Yes we still have more than one week before closing the release.
We can try some changes in the build system.

> If it were up to me, I think I'd just apply Marios latest patch series 
> (perhaps condence it somewhat) to get it over with, fine-tune later 
> if/as necessary. This is veering to the side of bikeshedding real fast.
> 
> BTW, one noteworthy point is that in all of these related threads, 
> nobody absolutely nobody has spoken up for the current behavior of "make 
> install". Which makes me wonder if anybody is actually using it, and 
> whether all this is just worrying for nothing.

Yes we can break some old behaviours. The T= option should be easy to simulate
in a single target case.