[fpc-pascal] Introducing PasBuild 1.0.0 - Maven-Inspired Build Tool for Free Pascal

[Marco van de Voort]

Op 9-12-2025 om 17:28 schreef mailinglists--- via fpc-pascal:
>
> I'm excited to announce the first release of PasBuild v1.0.0, a
> modern build automation tool for Free Pascal projects inspired by
> Apache Maven!

While I over the years I did some work on various FPC related build 
systems, I wasn't involved in fpm(unit|make)'s specification and 
requirements. Still some quick thoughts after scanning through the document:

- The first is not a pasbuild criticism, but a realisation; reading this 
does make you wonder why fpmake didn't go for the scanning solution and 
requires such deep specification. Maybe to package only relevant units, 
and not target Y specific units when building on X ? I have to admit, I 
don't know the answer.

- I should remind that fpmake does not just build single projects, but 
/hierarchies/ of packages in parallel if possible. That is a fpmake 
killer feature in my view. FPC doesn't compile THAT fast.

- I dislike any hardcoded paths, and the chosen defaults (with redundant 
"Pascal") even more.  At the least it should be configurable.   If that 
is possible with a non minimal XML, then fine. I can live with that.  
Phrases like "Where should I put this file?" sounds hollow it if its my 
way or the highway. Also makes it hard to retrofit to existing VCS trees.

- with any new build tool, if I had any say in it, I would like to 
strictly separate input files and output files, in totally separate 
trees like GNU configure does. Having src and target both in one 
toplevel dir defies that.

- The commandline only, and XML as format seems somewhat weird. XML is 
not a format I associate with manual editing. I'd expect a GUI with that.

- Resources as a directory for to be parsed-with-macros files is IMHO a 
misnomer. Binary files are resources too, and I wouldn't want a pasbuild 
parser to descent into it.

I don't get the testing references, but I currently don't do exhaustive 
unit testing with a unit test framework, so that might be the reason.