On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:06 AM Sven Barth via fpc-devel
wrote:
> If you want to use it for yourself you might better want to take a look at
> fpmake which uses Pascal code.
> fpcmake is only used by the compiler and RTL as well as a skeleton for the
> fpmake packages nowadays.
Honestly, full
Op 5/22/2019 om 9:06 AM schreef Sven Barth via fpc-devel:
In [target] you can specify "programs" but it's also needed to
specify scripts, privileged_programs (sbin) and
privileged_scripts. Though the scripts targets could go in
[install] as well.
I get that these are
Kevin Lyda schrieb am Di., 21. Mai 2019, 22:04:
> Looking at using fpcmake and it comes up short. I'm wondering if some
> patches to it would be acceptable. Broken down by section...
>
> In [install] it would be nice to be able to specify some other file
> locations. Specifically, man pages
Looking at using fpcmake and it comes up short. I'm wondering if some
patches to it would be acceptable. Broken down by section...
In [install] it would be nice to be able to specify some other file
locations. Specifically, man pages (using the suffix to determine the
correct dir) and texinfo
Is this a bug?
utils/fpcm/bin/i386-linux/fpcmake -Tall -r
recursed into most subdirectories, but the build later failed in
utils/fpcm (I think) with the complaint that aarch64-linux was not
supported. I observed that the Makefiles in that part of the tree had
not been updated. I had to do
Hi,
I am new to fpcmake and the Makefile.fpc format. I tried to read the
docs and see if I can find any problems, but nothing I can see.
fpcmake keeps telling me that the rtl package is not found.
I run under Linux i386. I am trying to compile with FPC 2.1.1 but I
have FPC 2.0.2 installed as
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
I am new to fpcmake and the Makefile.fpc format. I tried to read the
docs and see if I can find any problems, but nothing I can see.
fpcmake keeps telling me that the rtl package is not found.
I run under Linux i386. I am trying to compile with FPC 2.1.1 but I
export FPC=/opt/fpc-2.1.1/bin/ppc386
export FPCDIR=/opt/fpc-2.1.1
also added /opt/fpc-2.1.1/bin to the PATH so it finds the correct fpcmake.
I always set the FPCDIR to a FPC Source directory.
Vincent
Thanks Vincent, that did the trick!
Graeme.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
I'm having a problem with the fpc packaging system and an example program.
I have a dir setup for Indy like this:
Indy
fpc
| | | | |
System Core ProtocolsInc examples
Please forgive me if I have posted this twice. I don't think it went through
the first time.
I'm maintaining Indy.
I have a problem using FPCMake with a Makefile.fpc that lists an example
program dir. The programs in the examples dir require Indy but the main
Makefile.fpc (used for the Indy
I agree with the complainant to some extent... the fpcmake files are very
complicated, and make itself isn't the easiest utility to use for non
(l)unix'ites -that's putting it mildly!-. However, I suppose whatever
we do is going to be complicated, so we have to live with it.
The main
At 13:51 13-10-2003, you wrote:
I agree with the complainant to some extent... the fpcmake files are very
complicated, and make itself isn't the easiest utility to use for non
(l)unix'ites -that's putting it mildly!-. However, I suppose whatever
we do is going to be complicated, so we have to
At 23:43 11-10-2003, you wrote:
If we change FPCMAKE to generate code like this:
-
#add dir of make.exe to PATH
override PATH +=$(dir $(MAKE))-
override PATH:=$(subst \,/,$(PATH))
#$(error $(PATH))
ifeq ($(findstring ;,$(PATH)),)
inUnix=1
Let's get rid of fpcmake. Pascal is good because
you do not need this old-crap-make-utility to compile your programs! All you
need is a compiler!
Thanks
Yakov
-
From: James Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel]fpcmake
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 01:55:41PM +0200, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yakov Sudeikin wrote:
Let's get rid of fpcmake. Pascal is good because you do not need
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 01:55:41PM +0200, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yakov Sudeikin wrote:
Let's get rid of fpcmake. Pascal is good because you do not need this
old-crap-make-utility to compile your programs! All you need is a compiler!
Not of you have hundred of files in a dozens of
James Mills wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 01:55:41PM +0200, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Yakov Sudeikin wrote:
Let's get rid of fpcmake. Pascal is good because you do not need this
old-crap-make-utility to compile your programs! All you need is a compiler!
Not of you have hundred of files in a
17 matches
Mail list logo
