On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:26, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 13:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
1. they are mostly generated anyway. The .fpc files are the info, not the
makefiles themselves.
I still prefer those Makefile.fpc files very much to the fpmake.pp files.
The idea is to completely get rid of make.
I know, but I was not discussing that (although I'm not a big fan of doing so
either, but I know that's a done deal). What I said was "Sticking to the
Makefile.fpc format (or any other structured format) and then automatically
generating something else from that (be it plain Makefiles, fpmake.pp or
whatever) would make it much easier to maintain the actual build
instructions, I think."
The problem is that the Makefile.fpc does not contain enough info and logic
for our purposes.
It is possible to stop supporting make without switching to manually writing
and maintaining fpmake.pp programs themselves. I don't think that allowing
the full flexibility of an arbitrary Pascal program as build instructions a
good idea, because it makes maintenance harder and makes it less easy to get
a quick overview of what is built/done.
I think you're too pessimistic :-)
If you look at the existing fpmake.pp files in the RTL/packages, you'll see
that they are still very simple.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
