Raghav, You have to draw a line between "supported" and "can it be made to work".
For instance I recall when a friend of mine, Christophe Fontaine, did an implementation on 32bit RPi. As Burt suggested, he did all the testing, and the net ask iirc was for some changes to a few types in vppinfra to be more 32bit friendly. Since this didn't introduce fragility it was done, but note that RPi and 32bit doesn't go through CSIT, and isn't on the supported list. Hence questions of the sort "why doesn't feature foo work on my [TI calculator | Cray]" typically will get "not supported but try..." To Dave's point about dependencies enumerated in the top-level makefile, I'd suggest to Burt's point, trying it and seeing what breaks. There's probably a more subtle line in the sand around IA and things like what flavour of SIMD you have ... Note we do have the Sandbox project (VPPSB) which is the very place for these sorts of non-project type thought experiments to still have a home. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017, 1:14 AM Burt Silverman <bur...@gmail.com> wrote: > My guess, Raghav, is that *you *do the testing when it comes to > distributions other than Centos and Ubuntu. But that does make me think of > a related question: the current long term Centos release is 7.3.1611 for > Centos 7, but the top level VPP Makefile has some references to packages > that are available in an archived Centos 7 release. It is a fine and not so > important point, for me, but it seems that the "official" VPP Centos > support only exists for an archived Centos release (question for Ed?) > Alternative question is whether the package numbers spelled out in the top > level Makefile have to be as precise as they are. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Raghav Kaushik (rakaushi) < > rakau...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Thanks a lot Dave. > > I already looked into this, but was actually asking from more systems > perspective - on the lines of glibc. > > I was wondering whether vpp in its current form is tested with > distributions like Windriver or Montavista. For our use case, I need to get > it working on wrl 5.x > > I worked on CGN which was running on Montavista kernel. But that was a > while ago. > Not sure about open VPP though. > > Also can you please confirm if it is true that we need glibc >= 2.7 ? > > ~ > Raghav > > On Feb 14, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbar...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > The top-level Makefile lists the current build dependencies relative to > both the centos and the Ubuntu distros. > > > > Thanks… Dave > > > > *From:* vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io > <vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io>] *On Behalf Of *Raghav Kaushik (rakaushi) > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2017 6:01 PM > *To:* vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > *Subject:* [vpp-dev] Vpp dependencies > > > > Hello Experts, > > > > I’m trying to figure out if vpp can run on one of our internal platforms > running a custom 3.1x kernel. > > Before spending time on the build system, I wanted to get an idea on what > dependences VPP has. > > > > For instance, I know that VPP uses DPDK and from Intel site, DPDK seems to > have a dependency on glibc >= 2.7 > > What about VPP, does it have its own glibc version dependency? What about 3 > rd party libraries > > > > Is there a list of such known dependences for VPP ? I couldn’t find > something of that order on the wiki. > > > > Thanks, > > Raghav > > > > > _______________________________________________ > vpp-dev mailing list > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > vpp-dev mailing list > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
