On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
Imagine you have debug, profiling and testing setup locally b
Should be debug, release and testing
Nono, I actually meant profiling as different from debug. The difference
being that debug has all optimizations off, profiling has them all on.
On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:22 AM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
Imagine you have debug, profiling and testing setup locally b
Should be debug, release and testing
Nono, I actually meant profiling as different from debug. The difference
Darius Blaszyk schrieb:
fpmake's intended use is to compile your FPC code. I can see the
use of trying to run a testsuite, build docs and a binary zip for
distribution: they are all FPC related things.
But it is not intended as a general build system (i.e. replace make
or ant or rpm or deb).
In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said:
functionality belongs in a different tool (although it could be in
fpmake), but let's not limit fpmake only to FPC please. Let us (end
users) also play with it ;)
My view on (traditional) Make:
(Note that if I say packages here, I mean
On 31 Mar 2011, at 13:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
1. they are mostly generated anyway. The .fpc files are the info,
not the
makefiles themselves.
I still prefer those Makefile.fpc files very much to the fpmake.pp
files. The fact that fpmake.pp files are plain Pascal code makes them
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 13:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
1. they are mostly generated anyway. The .fpc files are the info, not the
makefiles themselves.
I still prefer those Makefile.fpc files very much to the fpmake.pp files.
The idea is to
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
(I have to be careful here, I'm not the fpmake/fppkg person, that is Joost,
these are my opinions only)
1. they are mostly generated anyway. The .fpc files are the info,
not the
makefiles themselves.
I still prefer those Makefile.fpc files
On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:26, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 13:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
1. they are mostly generated anyway. The .fpc files are the info,
not the
makefiles themselves.
I still prefer those Makefile.fpc
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:26, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 13:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
1. they are mostly generated anyway. The .fpc files are the info, not the
makefiles
On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:42, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
I still prefer those Makefile.fpc files very much to the fpmake.pp
files. The fact that fpmake.pp files are plain Pascal code makes them
extremely flexible, but at the same time that also makes it
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 09:43 +0100, LacaK wrote:
after doing some test with new implementation of TFmtBCDField for
TSQLite3Connection connector I encounter this problem:
When you declare in SQLite some column as NUMERIC or DECIMAL then this
column will have NUMERIC affinity.
CREATE TABLE t
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
However I consider this a transitional problem only. We are still in
the raw plumbing and discovery phase. In time, I assume some
autogeneration helper functionality will emerge to make it at least
(way) more bearable.
That's all I'm asking
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 21:19 +0200, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:31 PM, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
- managing debug/release builds (also cross-compiling)
What is failing in the current system for this ?
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 17:09 +0200, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
A couple of things that come to mind:
Note that you can build your own add-ins. I used it to build a
Lazarus-add-in, so that you can install Lazarus-components. It is not
ideal yet, but you can use this approach to add functionality,
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 15:41 +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 31 Mar 2011, at 14:42, Marco van de Voort wrote:
At least the package I referred to (univint) tends to change
significantly over time. The Mac OS X 10.6 SDK split a bunch of
headers and removed others compared to previous versions
Thisnfeature is already there. When you use fpmake directly: -f, if
you use
fppkg (what I would recommend): fppkg -c.
Thanks, I will have a look how it works. I'll try to document it on the
wiki.
On the side, fppkg is only for FPC right? So not useful for standalone
projects.
Darius
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 17:47 +0200, dhkblas...@zeelandnet.nl wrote:
Thisnfeature is already there. When you use fpmake directly: -f, if
you use
fppkg (what I would recommend): fppkg -c.
Thanks, I will have a look how it works. I'll try to document it on the
wiki.
On the side,
In our previous episode, Joost van der Sluis said:
That's why I mentioned or any other structured format.
It's not a bad idea to see if we can make a structured (and readable)
format to create our fpmake.pp files.
I think the problem goes deeper than this. Makefile.fpc doesn't list unit
18 matches
Mail list logo
