[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: fix libs installation when installing sdk

[Olivier MATZ]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:32:12AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 15/12/2017 11:25, Olivier MATZ:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:19:57AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 14/12/2017 15:24, Olivier Matz:
> > > > @@ -157,6 +157,8 @@ install-sdk:
> > > >  	$(Q)cp -a               $O/.config               $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)
> > > >  	$(Q)cp -a               $O/app/dpdk-pmdinfogen   $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)/app
> > > >  	$(Q)$(call rte_symlink, $(DESTDIR)$(includedir), $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)/include)
> > > > +	$(Q)$(call rte_mkdir,                            $(DESTDIR)$(libdir))
> > > > +	$(Q)cp -a               $O/lib/*                 $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)
> > > >  	$(Q)$(call rte_symlink, $(DESTDIR)$(libdir),     $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)/lib)
> > > 
> > > The libs are already installed with "make install-runtime".
> > > Either we add a dependency between install-sdk and install-runtime,
> > > or we clearly document it.
> > 
> > To me, libs are needed when installing the sdk (to compile against them)
> > and when installing the runtime (to use them).
> > 
> > Is it a problem to have it in both targets?
> 
> Yes it is a problem because the general use is to call every targets,
> so the libs will be installed twice. Look at the global "install" target.
> 
> Do you want to be able to install the SDK without the runtime?

Hmm, you're right, installing the runtime instead of the sdk may be a
solution in our case. We don't need the bin, man, ... but it's probably
not an issue to have them anyway.

So, to summarize:
  install-runtime is the equivalent of the binary package
  install-sdk is the equivalent of the -devel package

And install-sdk depends on install-runtime, right?