ctors for PMD's at the very least mean that
> every
> pmd will get paged in weather you want it or not using the combined library.
> Individual libraries let you dynamically load them (via dlopen). I think the
> same is true of several other facets of dpdk.
What's the
Re-sending this unsigned since the ML rejected my signed email.
-1 from Ubuntu without further discussion since it will break us. Please
don't commit this patch yet.
I don't understand why we must have the complexity of so many shared
libraries. From a distribution packaging perspective, all I se
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:21:02PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Adding a soname and a semi-arbitrary version does not fix the fundamental
> problems:
>
> Since the library lumps together everything in DPDK, you'd have to bump its
> version whenever any of the individual libraries bumps its vers
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 04:18:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > First, it would be easier for us to ship a single binary package that
> > ships a single shared library to cover all of DPDK that library
> > consumers might need, rather than having it split up as you do. I
> > unders
Hi,
We?re looking at packaging DPDK in Ubuntu. We?d like to discuss upstream
changes to better integrate DPDK into Linux distributions. Here?s a
summary of what we need:
1) Define one library ABI (soname and sover) that we can use instead of the
split build.
2) Fix #includes so we don't ha
5 matches
Mail list logo
