[fpc-pascal] releasing commercial components as PPU files

Graeme Geldenhuys graeme at geldenhuys.co.uk
Mon Oct 22 15:45:58 CEST 2012


On 2012-10-22 14:25, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> 
> (and one set per target)

Correct.


> I've been thinking about this, since the discussion with the TMS grid guy
> (Bruno F.) on the Lazarus Day. He was interested because of trial versions
> btw, rather than cheap licenses.

Yes, I'm thinking of trial versions too.


> I think it would work in principle. Package built systems are harder though,
> one doesn't know if they are built with -Ur.

Just like my answer to Michael. Isn't -Ur a default compiler parameter
set in the Makefiles?

eg: Doing a compile (make all) of 2.7.1
You can see the -Ur is specified by default. I haven't tested FPC 2.6.0,
but I think it is the same.

------------------------

me/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/rtl/units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64
-dRELEASE -Fi../inc ../inc/variants.pp
variants.pp(4354,32) Warning: Comparison might be always true due to
range of constant and expression
/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/compiler/ppc1 -Ur -Ur -Xs -O2 -n
-Fi../inc -Fi../x86_64 -Fi../unix -Fix86_64 -FE.
-FU/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/rtl/units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64
-dRELEASE ../objpas/types.pp
/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/compiler/ppc1 -Ur -Ur -Xs -O2 -n
-Fi../inc -Fi../x86_64 -Fi../unix -Fix86_64 -FE.
-FU/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/rtl/units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64
-dRELEASE -I../objpas ../objpas/dateutils.pp
/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/compiler/ppc1 -Ur -Ur -Xs -O2 -n
-Fi../inc -Fi../x86_64 -Fi../unix -Fix86_64 -FE.
-FU/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/rtl/units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64
-dRELEASE ../objpas/fgl.pp
/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/compiler/ppc1 -Ur -Ur -Xs -O2 -n
-Fi../inc -Fi../x86_64 -Fi../unix -Fix86_64 -FE.
-FU/home/graemeg/devel/fpc-2.7.1/src/rtl/units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64
-dRELEASE -Fi../objpas/classes ../unix/classes.pp

------------------------


> Missing that parameter could mean that a later minor revision of a package (say package
> 2.6.0-1) has later build dates and will force recompilations.

That's why I'm thinking of saying "strictly FPC binary releases are
supported". This would be no different to Delphi.  It's the drawback
they must accept when they buy the cheaper version, or using the trial
version.


> I have doubts this is all worthwhile. Compared to delphi, versions and
> targets significalty increase, thus support burden increases

>From my experience it seems that if you do production work, stick to
officially released FPC versions only. I have had problems with 2.7.1
and 2.6.x and reverted to using 2.6.0 only, for production code.

I know this is my experience only - I don't know how other commercial
entities work with FPC.


> But we'll never know till sb simply tries I guess.

:)


Regards,
  - Graeme -




More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list