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

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at redhat.com
Tue Sep 22 10:34:30 CEST 2015


On 09/22/2015 11:00 AM, Olivier MATZ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/22/2015 08:29 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 09/18/2015 11:33 PM, Mario Carrillo wrote:
>>> DPDK package lacks of a mechanism to install libraries, headers
>>> applications and kernel modules to a file system tree.
>>>
>>> This patch set allows to install files according to the next
>>> proposal:
>>> http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy.html
>>>
>>> By adding a parameter H=1 (hierarchy-file) to makefile system, it is
>>> possible to do the next steps
>>>
>>> make config T=TARGET
>>> make
>>> make install H=1
>>>
>>> and files will be installed on the proper directory. Also you can use
>>> the DESTDIR variable.
>>
>> Thanks for working on this!
>>
>> My 5c is that I'd rather see "make install" do the right thing (as in,
>> behave like a normal OSS project) by default instead of requiring some
>> obscure additional parameter (which almost nobody will then find) to
>> activate it.
>
> 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.

>  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.

	- Panu -




More information about the dev mailing list