[fpc-pascal] Issues with fpc-build-3.0.0

Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl.fpc-pascal at telemetry.co.uk
Fri Jan 29 16:26:47 CET 2016


Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Tony Whyman wrote:
> 
>> I am not convinced that it is a good idea for the default install to 
>> result in a broken system.
> 
> It's not broken.
> 
> As jonas said, make install is used a lot to install a new version, but 
> that doesn't mean you want to make it the default version.
> 
> Do not forget that using makefiles implies that you already have a 
> working version.
> 
> But maybe we can add a
> 
> make distinstall
> 
> target (target name debatable) on the FPC root directory that calls
> 
> make -C compiler installsymlink
> 
> which would then proceed to do what you want on unix systems. If the 
> make info or help mentions this, it should be OK.

I wonder whether a useful compromise would be to install a sufficient 
symlink that  fpc -V  reaches a plausible binary. After all, I'm sure 
I'm not the only person who has a symlink layer like  ppcx86-3.0.0  and 
having  ppcx86  forcibly overwritten before I was ready for it might not 
be what I wanted.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list