[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 20.11 02/19] build: remove makefiles and mk directory

[Jerin Jacob]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:04 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/7/2020 2:23 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:49:47PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:15 PM Bruce Richardson
> >> <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 01:29:52PM +0100, Ciara Power wrote:
> >>>> It was decided [1] to no longer support Make in DPDK, this patch
> >>>> removes all Makefiles that do not make use of pkg-config, along with
> >>>> the mk directory previously used by make.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-April/162839.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.power at intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  GNUmakefile                                   |  17 -
> >>>>  Makefile                                      |   4 -
> >>>
> >>> Open question from me:
> >>> Do we want to leave a dummy top-level makefile that prints instructions on
> >>> build with meson and ninja - or even runs a build using them if they are
> >>> installed?
> >>
> >> Maybe we can keep "make tags" as well in top-level Makefile.
> >
> > Is it better to point people directly to the script? My concern about
> > having a makefile is that it may confuse people as to how to build DPDK.
> > On the other side, there is a convenience aspect to having a makefile, so
> > I'm open to being convinced either way.

I was looking more of a convenience point of view.
Can we check how other meson based projects deal with similar problems?

> >
>
> A dummy Makefile to print instructions may be helpful for people missed the
> change, I am for having it.
>
> But I am dubious on extending it, like for tags, although I found it useful I
> think we should integrate it to meson instead.

I think, we can not integrate such stuff with meson. If we can with meson,
I agree we should take that path.