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.richard...@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.po...@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. >
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.
