Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] librte_cfgfile enhancements

["Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>]

> > As follow-up to my own mail, for this specific library example, I
> > wouldn't look to remove it from DPDK anyway. Parsing ini files is fairly
> > trivial, so I think it's not a big deal to keep our own version and not
> > have an external dependency - especially since it's already there and not
> > a big maintenance burden.
> 
> Removing this lib would not disable anything as it is used only by examples.
> I don't see what would be the issue.
> We just have to download the lib when building the example app.
> It can be done quite easily in the makefile.
> 

Thomas, more than 3 quarters of DPDK libs are only used by applications, is this a reason to remove them?

Also, I think the purpose of DPDK is to enable people to write applications, not more libraries. Would you agree? We should make the life easier for the application developers, not libraries.

This library is an important utility for applications, similar to librte_cmdline and others. I think it is not fair from your side to refer to librte_cfgfile without any reference to librte_cmdline.


> > For newer functionalty, we do need clear guidelines as to when it is
> > acceptable to add new dependencies to DPDK. I'd love to see us enable
> > the PCAP PMD by default, for instance, and I think Sergio has recently
> > proposed we also require libnuma on Linux.
> 
> We won't include libpcap or libnuma.
> The only thing we should do is to make easier to view and enable
> dependencies.