On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 09:02:38 +0200
"Graeme Geldenhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 04/04/06, Vincent Snijders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And where does -o fit into this reasoning?
> >
> > Vincent
>
> Ok, maybe -o in the actual culprit and not -FU. I see that, so lets
> look at it compared to project files (.lpi & .lpr)
>
> The location of the .lpk, .lpi and .lpr is used everywhere else as the
> root directory of the project or package and any references to other
> files are relative to the that root location.
>
> Now, it you enter a path in the "Compiler Options - > Unit output
> directory", suddenly the new root directory for the executable is not
> the location of the .lpr and .lpi file, but the specified "Unit output
> directory". This is where I have the problem. Referring back to my
> example directory layout, to get the executable in the root directory,
> you now need to specify a Target Executable or "../appname.exe".
>
> From a users point of view, if they entered the Target Executable
> (name only, with no paths), they would expect the file to end up in
> the same location as the .lpi and .lpr directory. They understand
> that the .lpi and .lpr is the location where everything starts, the
> root. Numerous developers here fell into that trap. They couldn't
> find the executable, and never thought to look in the "Unit output
> directory', they didn't specify a path for the Target Executable, only
> a different name.
I see. So, if a user specifies a target name, then it should be relative to
the project directory, otherwise put it in the unit output directory.
Mattias
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
