>2016-03-03 14:55, Wiles, Keith: >> >>2016-02-28 21:47, Wiles, Keith: >> >>> >Hi, >> >>> > >> >>> >2016-02-09 11:35, Keith Wiles: >> >>> >> Adding support to the build system to allow for Makefile.XXX >> >>> >> extention to a subtree, which already has Makefiles. These >> >>> >> Makefiles could be from the autotools and others places. Using >> >>> >> the Makefile extention RTE_MKFILE_SUFFIX in a makefile subtree >> >>> >> using 'export RTE_MKFILE_SUFFIX=.XXX' to use Makefile.XXX in >> >>> >> that subtree. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> The main reason I needed this feature was to integrate a autotool >> >>> >> open source projects with DPDK and keep the original Makefiles. >> >>> > >> >>> >Sorry I fail to understand why it is needed. >> >>> >Are you trying to add autotool in DPDK? I don't think it is a good >> >>> >approach. >> >>> >The DPDK must provide a pkgconfig interface to be integrated anywhere. >> >>> >> >>> I was not trying to add autotools to DPDK. On a number of times I wanted >> >>> to integrate a open source project(s) with DPDK and use DPDK?s build >> >>> system, but because the open source project already contained Makefile >> >>> files you can not use DPDK build system without modify or moving the >> >>> original Makefile files. Using this method I can just add a exported >> >>> variable and supply my own Makefile.XXX files. >> >>> >> >>> One case was building FreeBSD source, but I did not want to modify >> >>> FreeBSD Makefiles (or reply on previous built Makefiles as they would >> >>> not work on Linux anyway) as I was pulling the source down from >> >>> freebsd.org repo. Using a patch to add the Makefiles with a different >> >>> suffix allows me to build FreeBSD using DPDK, without having to modify >> >>> or own the FreeBSD source. I have had this problem a number of times >> >>> with open source code I did not want to modify, but just build within >> >>> DPDK build system and adding the support for a different suffix to DPDK >> >>> provided a clean way. The change does not effect the correct build >> >>> system and just allows someone to define a new suffix for a given >> >>> subtree in the code. >> >> >> >>Why would you like to have another project inside the DPDK files tree? >> >>If you want to integrate the lib inside an existing project, the solution >> >>is pkgconfig. >> > >> >The goal for me was to use DPDK build system for that project, instead of >> >using autotools or some other makefile system. In the case of FreeBSD code, >> >the FreeBSD build system requires FreeBSD tools to be built as the ?make? >> >and the Makefiles are very different on a Linux machine. >> >> Does anyone find this patch useful, I would hate to see this one die as it >> does not effect the current builds, but adds support for using DPDK build >> system without having to modify or move the existing Makefiles. > >I would hate making the build system even more complicated to use it >for something which is not its role. >It opens the door to feature requests which are clearly out of its scope.
Ok, Thanks I will change the status in patchwork to rejected. > > Regards, Keith
