On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:49:50 +0100
Milipili Houbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
> As we can specify the target OS and arch, I would like to change the
> executable name according ti this. The ultimate feature would be the
> use of variable. Something like this :
> Target name : foo.${targetos}.${targetcpu}${extension} would give :
> - foo.Linux.x86
> - foo.Linux.x86_64
> - foo.windows.x86.exe
> - foo.windows.x86_64.exe
>
> Consequently, it needs settings for all targets and the same one
> which override them for a specific targets ()
And which customer wants such names?
You can already define target specific output directories for projects
and packages.
> For my part, I mainly need specific flags for a "Debug" target or a
> "Release" one.
That's the next problem. Everyone needs only a few specifics. That's
why I think the GUI should not split into different sets of options,
but present the big dialog with 'defaults' and an extra page with
the few exceptions. See Felipe's mail.
>
> The idea of specific units is not a bad one since you can provide a
> specific build of your app for special needs of a customer (units
> _and_ forms in fact).
>
> The title of the target should not be limited to some caracters
You can let the installer rename the final executable whatever you
want. But the debugger and other tools support only a subset of
characters.
> The ultimate of the ultimate feature would be to be able to compile
> a specific target from the command line, and if possible, without
> the need of a graphical interface. This way, you can run your daily
> compilation and your numerous tests.
>
> :)
lazbuild, fpmake?
Mattias
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
