On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:02 PM Burakov, Anatoly
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

SPDK build is still broken.
http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/174840.html

[...]

quoted

quoted

I guess this is because of the added dependency of rte_ethdev to rte_power.
Afaics, SPDK does not use pkg-config:
https://github.com/spdk/spdk/blob/master/lib/env_dpdk/env.mk#L53

Sooo... this is an SPDK issue then? Because i can't see any way of
fixing the issue on DPDK side.

Yes SPDK should not skip pkg-config.
But it raises 2 question:
      - are we breaking ABI compatibility?

Good question. Does including an extra intra-DPDK dependency count as
ABI break? I was under impression that we didn't want DPDK to be
distributed as individual libraries but rather would like it to be used
as a whole, so if internal dependencies between components change, it's
not a big deal (unless a third-party build system is used that
explicitly specifies dependencies rather than using pkg-config).

I don't get where an ABI breakage would be.

What I reported is an issue with static link.

For shared link, I would expect librte_power would expose its
dependency on rte_ethdev via a DT_NEEDED entry.
The final binary does not have to be aware of it.


-- 
David Marchand