Marco van de Voort schrieb:
In a new approach I'd provide the interpretation of existing MakeFiles,
and extend it to the specific needs and capabilities of the FPC/Lazarus
project (package...) model.
Personally I don't think the core makefile principles are worth preserving
at all:
ACK. A bu
Joost van der Sluis schrieb:
That's why I mentioned "or any other structured format".
It's not a bad idea to see if we can make a structured (and readable)
format to create our fpmake.pp files.
I was also thinking about letting fpmake detect from the compiler-output
if a dependency is missing
In our previous episode, Joost van der Sluis said:
> > That's why I mentioned "or any other structured format".
>
> It's not a bad idea to see if we can make a structured (and readable)
> format to create our fpmake.pp files.
I think the problem goes deeper than this. Makefile.fpc doesn't list un
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 17:47 +0200, dhkblas...@zeelandnet.nl wrote:
> > Thisnfeature is already there. When you use fpmake directly: -f, if
> > you use
> > fppkg (what I would recommend): fppkg -c.
>
> Thanks, I will have a look how it works. I'll try to document it on the
> wiki.
>
> On the
Thisnfeature is already there. When you use fpmake directly: -f, if
you use
fppkg (what I would recommend): fppkg -c.
Thanks, I will have a look how it works. I'll try to document it on the
wiki.
On the side, fppkg is only for FPC right? So not useful for standalone
projects.
Darius
__
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:41 +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:42, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> At least the package I referred to (univint) tends to change
> significantly over time. The Mac OS X 10.6 SDK split a bunch of
> headers and removed others compared to previous version
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 17:09 +0200, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
> A couple of things that come to mind:
Note that you can build your own add-ins. I used it to build a
Lazarus-add-in, so that you can install Lazarus-components. It is not
ideal yet, but you can use this approach to add functionality, with
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 21:19 +0200, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >> On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:31 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
> >>
> - managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
> >>>
> >>> What is failing in the current syst
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
> > However I consider this a transitional problem only. We are still in
> > the raw plumbing and discovery phase. In time, I assume some
> > autogeneration helper functionality will emerge to make it at least
> > (way) more bearable.
>
> That's all I'
On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:42, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
I still prefer those Makefile.fpc files very much to the fpmake.pp
files. The fact that fpmake.pp files are plain Pascal code makes them
extremely flexible, but at the same time that also makes it m
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.
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
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
(I have to be careful here, I'm not the fpmake/fppkg person, that is Joost,
these are my opinions only)
> > 1. they are mostly generated anyway. The .fpc files are the info,
> > not the
> > makefiles themselves.
>
> I still prefer those Makefile.fpc
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 completel
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 fact that fpmake.pp files are plain Pascal code makes them
In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said:
> > functionality belongs in a different tool (although it could be in
> > fpmake), but let's not limit fpmake only to FPC please. Let us (end
> > users) also play with it ;)
>
> My view on (traditional) Make:
(Note that if I say packages here,
Darius Blaszyk schrieb:
fpmake's intended use is to compile your FPC code. I can see the
use of trying to run a testsuite, build docs and a binary zip for
distribution: they are all FPC related things.
But it is not intended as a general build system (i.e. replace make
or ant or rpm or deb).
W
On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:22 AM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
>
>>
>>> Imagine you have debug, profiling and testing setup locally b
>>
>> Should be debug, release and testing
>
> Nono, I actually meant profiling as different from debug. The
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
Imagine you have debug, profiling and testing setup locally b
Should be debug, release and testing
Nono, I actually meant profiling as different from debug. The difference
being that debug has all optimizations off, profiling has them all on.
S
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
(not to mention all the possible complications on Windows, probably Mac OS as
well)
Can you name a potential issue you see by renaming the makefile to some other
extension? I thought that FPC does not mind which extension you use, as long as
the s
> Imagine you have debug, profiling and testing setup locally b
Should be debug, release and testing
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
fpmake build debug
I would prefer a named option, i.e.
fpmake build --profile=debug
from the users perspective this is not very friendly.
It is more clear what is meant. All other option
> (not to mention all the possible complications on Windows, probably Mac
> OS as well)
Can you name a potential issue you see by renaming the makefile to some
other extension? I thought that FPC does not mind which extension you use,
as long as the syntax is correct?
>>>
On Mar 30, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>> fpmake build debug
>>>
>>> I would prefer a named option, i.e.
>>>
>>> fpmake build --profile=debug
>> from the users perspective this is not very friendly.
>
> It is more clear what is meant. All other options are also specified
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:37 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I don't think this is needed/wanted. fpmake.pp is intended to be used in tandem
with fppkg, and that looks for a fpmake.pp program, not a script.
For FPC yes, but for standalone projects thi
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
- managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
What is failing in the current system for this ?
I was thinking to be able to do something like :
fpmake build debug
This will add
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:37 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>> I don't think this is needed/wanted. fpmake.pp is intended to be used in
>>> tandem with fppkg, and that looks for a fpmake.pp program, not a script.
>> For FPC yes, but for standalone projects this is not the case as you
>> mentioned.
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>> - managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
>
> What is failing in the current system for this ?
I was thinking to be able to do something like :
> fpmake build debug
This will add so
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
- execute fpmake from command line (see thread by mattias : "run
pascal programs as script") for this we would need instantfpc to
support win32 and it should be supplied as a standard fpc tool
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:31 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
- managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
What is failing in the
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>> - execute fpmake from command line (see thread by mattias : "run
>> pascal programs as script") for this we would need instantfpc to
>> support win32 and it should be supplied as a standard fpc tool
>
> I doubt this is
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:31 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
>>
- managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
>>>
>>> What is failing in the current system for th
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:46 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Am 30.03.2011 17:31, schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
- execute fpmake from command line (see thread by mattias : "run
pascal progra
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:31 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
- managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
What is failing in the current system for this ?
I was thinking to be able to do something like :
fpmake build debug
This
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:46 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>> Am 30.03.2011 17:31, schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
- execute fpmake from command line (see thread by mattias : "run
pascal programs as script") for this we wou
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:31 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
>> - managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
>
> What is failing in the current system for this ?
I was thinking to be able to do something like :
>fpmake build debug
This will add some debug options to the build proc
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> In our previous episode, michael.vancann...@wisa.be said:
> > > - implement the creation of installer (scripts) for all platforms
> >
> > I doubt a cross-platform installer is feasible within the scope of FPC.
In our previous episode, michael.vancann...@wisa.be said:
> > - implement the creation of installer (scripts) for all platforms
>
> I doubt a cross-platform installer is feasible within the scope of FPC.
> If you mean the creation of a skeleton inno setup script or a .rpm or .deb
> spec, that can
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Am 30.03.2011 17:31, schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
- execute fpmake from command line (see thread by mattias : "run
pascal programs as script") for this we would need instantfpc to
support win32 and it should be supplied as a standard fpc too
Am 30.03.2011 17:31, schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
>> - execute fpmake from command line (see thread by mattias : "run
>> pascal programs as script") for this we would need instantfpc to
>> support win32 and it should be supplied as a standard fpc tool
>
> I doubt this is feasible for window
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
Hi,
I'm using fpmake more and more in my projects (large or small) and from time to time I
come across some limitations that need to be resolved. In the past I have supplied a
number of small patches which were normally applied without problems, bu
Hi,
I'm using fpmake more and more in my projects (large or small) and from time to
time I come across some limitations that need to be resolved. In the past I
have supplied a number of small patches which were normally applied without
problems, but sometimes I was sent back (mostly with good r
42 matches
Mail list logo
