Am 14.03.2024 um 11:04 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Karoly Balogh via fpc-pascal wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez via fpc-pascal wrote:
I thought "packages" were libraries not applications, as there is an
"utils" directory with programs.
I agree, I'm also not very fond of the IDE being in packages, but most of
the team considers it a legacy piece of code (which it is, no argument
there), and at least this way it doesn't need constant special treatment,
unlike when it was in the root folder of the repo under "ide". It's less
"in the way".
Still, it is more logical to place it under utils, with the rest of the
programs.
The argument about the time to compile seems simply false to me:
If you consider the FPC toplevel 'make all' as the only command to
issue, then you may win some time, although I doubt it will be that much.
But 99% of the time, you don't need to recompile the utilities.
I do always a make all as it takes only a few more seconds than a make
cycle and then I am sure everything builds.
I certainly do not:
I usually do a make cycle followed by a compilation of the rtl/packages
with debug info.
So if we moved the IDE to utils where it logically belongs, I would
actually be winning time, contrary to the argument for having it in
packages.
As I moved it, my thinking was that it is not really a utility but a
package (in particular in the sense of the installer). And having
executables is also the case for other packages.
To me it therefore seems a better idea to move the IDE to utils, and to
have a
toplevel make command that does the same as 'make all' simply without the
utilities. Or have a 'NOUTILS=1' define.
It increases build time if one want to test that everything builds with
no real gain and being not a utility?
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
