On Mon, February 11, 2013 10:04, Sven Barth wrote: > On 11.02.2013 09:55, Jonas Maebe wrote: >> On 11 Feb 2013, at 09:45, Sven Barth wrote: >>> On 10.02.2013 23:04, Marco van de Voort wrote: >>>> I never spent more than an evening on the test though, since I rather >>>> get >>>> rid of all the mingw parts instead (think fpmake here) >>> >>> This might be the best. Let's see that fpmake can handle all that and >>> then get rid of the remaining tool dependencies. >> >> As I've said before: I think the compiler and RTL should remain >> Makefile-based (whether or not that is in addition to fpmake support for >> them, doesn't matter to me), to make porting to new platforms easier. >> "make cycle" is a very nice and easy test, and it would be quite >> annoying if fpmkunit and all of it dependencies would have to be >> compilable/working and installed before that could be performed. It >> would also make the bootstrapping process in general much more complex. > > Then we would still have the problem of the outdated tools. Maybe we > could write Pascal based substitutes for them that only need to handle > the cases of compiler/rtl compilation...
That's what I did for rm with rmwait indeed. However, people writing such replacements need to be careful to restrict themselves to plain RTL (and preferably the cross-platform parts only) rather than using packages simplifying the work on one hand but leading to many dependencies on the other. Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel