> -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:57 AM > To: Panu Matilainen > Cc: Olivier MATZ; Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] dpdk proposal installation process > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 08:55:41AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 10/21/2015 10:15 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: > > >Hi Mario, > > > > > >On 10/20/2015 11:17 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > >>On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:21:00AM +0000, Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C > wrote: > > >>>Hi folks, > > >>> > > >>> Good day, this is a proposal in order to improve the dpdk > > >>>install process, I would like to know your point of view about the > > >>>next points according to previous conversations :) in order to create a > new patches version. > > >>> > > >>>1) I think the first thing that I have to be aware is > > >>>"compatibility", the new changes won't affect the current dpdk > behaviour. > > > > > >Yes. As I stated in a previous mail, I think nobody uses the current > > >"make install" without specifying T= as the default value is to build > > >and install for all targets. > > > > > >My suggestion is: > > > > > >- rename the previous "install" target. The name could probably > > > be "mbuild" (for multiple builds). Other ideas are welcome. > > > > > >- when "make install" is invoked with T= argument, call the mbuild > > > target to have the same behavior than before. This compat layer > > > could be removed in the future. > > > > > >- when "make install" is invoked without T=, it installs the fhs. > > > > Nice, this sounds like the best of both worlds. > > > > > > > >>>2) Create new makefile rules, these rules is going to install dpdk > > >>>files in default paths, however the linux distributions don't use > > >>>the same paths for their files, the linux distribution and the > > >>>architecture can be factor for different path as Panu commented in > > >>>previous conversations, he is right, then all variables could be > overridden, the variables names for the user can be included in > documentation. > > >>>Also an option could be a configuration file for paths, however I'm not > sure. > > > > > >I think having variables is ok. > > > > > >>>3) The default paths for dpdk in order to follow a hierarchy, > > >>>however the variable with those values can be overridden. > > >>> > > >>>-install-bin --> /usr/bin. > > >>>-install-headers --> /usr/include/dpdk > > >>>-install-lib --> /usr/lib64 > > > > > >I remember Panu suggested to have /usr/lib by default. > > >I also think /usr/lib a better default value: some distributions use > > >/usr/lib for 64 bits libs, but we never have 32 bits libs in > > >/usr/lib64. > > > > Yes, just stick /usr/lib there and be done with it, lib64 is not a > > good default for these very reasons. > > > > >>>-install-doc --> /usr/share/doc/dpdk > > >>>-install-mod --> if RTE_EXEC_ENV=linuxapp then > KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/extra/drivers/dpdk > > >>> else KERNEL_DIR=/boot/modules). > > > > > >I'm not sure KERNEL_DIR is the proper name. Maybe KMOD_DIR? > > > > > >>>-install-sdk --> /usr/share/dpdk and call install-headers ). > > >>>-install-fhs --> call install-libraries, install-mod, > > >>>install-bin and install- > doc (maybe install-headers) > > >>> > > >>>4) I'm going to take account all feedback about variables, paths etc for > the new version :). > > >>> > > >>>Thank you so much for your help. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Mario. > > >> > > >>Hi Mario, > > >> > > >>that seems like a lot of commands to add - are they all individually > needed? > > >> > > >>In terms of where things go, should the "usr" part not a) be > > >>configurable via a parameter, and b) default to "/usr/local" as > > >>that's where user-installed software from outside the packaging system > normally gets put. > > > > > >A PREFIX variable would do the job. > > >About the default to /usr or /usr/local, I agree that /usr/local > > >looks more usual, and I don't think it's a problem for packaging as > > >soon as it can be overridden. > > > > Yeah, PREFIX support would be nice, and defaulting that to /usr/local > > would be the right thing. > > > > - Panu - > > > > > > > > > > >Regards, > > >Olivier > > > > > > > Can I throw a completely different suggestion into the mix? > > Can we make use of the fact that make config creates a directory called > "build" > by default. Then running "make" alone in that directory does the expected > behaviour of a compile of the whole sdk. How about having "make install" in > the build directory behave like a generic "make install" call for other > packages? > > I'm imagining the following sequence of steps to install: > > ./configure --machine=[default|native|other] > # configure is a simple script that just calls "make config > T=..." > cd build > make > make install > > Thoughts? > > /Bruce
Hi Guys, Thank you so much for your feedback, about your last comments, I understood the next: 1) -"make install" using "T" variable: This command will use a rule for the current behaviour called "mbuild" -"make install" without "T" variable: This command will install everything: headers, libraries, modules, apps, docs, and sdk files (config files, make files, scripts and examples). 2) About variables, you rigth, KMOD_DIR sounds better than KERNEL_DIR, and LIB_DIR should be /usr/lib by default. 3) -To use a "prefix variable" -This prefix variable will be "/usr/local" by default. -This prefix variable can be overridden. Example: $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX)/$(INCLUDE_DIR) 4) What do you think about the Bruce's proposal?