In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: > >> 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.
I spoke mainly for the release situation. Primarily I would want to get rid/minimize of own distributions of toolchains on non *nix. (3x windows, go32v2 and OS/2). > "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. Does anything really get more compilated then compiler/Makefile ? :-) (3800 lines, .fpc is 900 lines, but I bet there is quite some in the template that is for compiler+rtl dirs only too) I agree that one has to be very conservative, and probably keep makefiles for rtl+compiler around a long, long time, and even longer as for *nix, but that is something else then saying "forever". I don't think it is wise to say either keep makefile forever OR force fpmake long term for everything before the fpmake system is actually there, and ripened, and cross/bootstrap scenarios covered. Currently there is nothing to compare. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
