2011/3/16 Mattias Gaertner <[email protected]>: >> > Write a package TAChartAggPas, that depends on AggPasLcl and >> > tachartlazaruspkg and has a unit implementing the aggpas backend for >> > TAChart. >> I considered that. But it will be one package per dependency -- so +3 >> packages right now. >> Is it ok from user interface point of view? > > I think yes. The project requires only one dependency instead of two > (TAChart+AggPas). So this might actually be an advantage. >
I was rather wondering about how easy it would be for the user to discover the need for that one dependency. >> Is there a notion of "package group" in the IDE? >> If not, maybe it is a good idea to create one? > What should that be? > > Packages are shown alphabetically, so if you use the same prefix they are > listed close together. I was thinking about the following: 1) Let "sub-package" be a special kind of package with the additional "Parent" field 2) In the IDE package list, display only a parent packages (maybe display sub-packages in a treeview-like manner) 3) Automatically install sub-packages if all their dependencies are installed (that, naturally, includes parent packages). The end result would be, if the user installs TAChart and OpenGL, he will automatically have opengl back-end, without the need to worry about TAChartOpenGL package. But may be it is overkill. To this moment, I am aware of a single user interested in AggPas back-end. -- Alexander S. Klenin -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
