On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:15:46PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > With a single archive, you get everything you build even if you don't need > it.
Right, I was trying to avoid that for people who specifically didn't want it, if there are any... I'm not one of them. > But presumably if you're building a static binary, you're > likely building the dpdk as well and can configure optional libraries out of > the > build. Separate libraries are more a need for downstream > distributors/packagers, who use dynamic shared objects anyway. Yeah, I was thinking it'd be nice if the downstream packagers could get a global '.a' and per-sublib '.a' as well. So that one dpdk package could be used by a client app which wanted everything, or only wanted portions. > Backward compatibilty? the DPDK doesn't yet provide run time compatibility > between releases (something I've been trying to change). Nobody provides > compile time compatibility. To do so would require fixing API's permenently. Agreed. I was just advocating to avoid worsening the already existent issues. ;) Matthew.