[fpc-devel] bugreport: FPC 1.9.8 installer, i386-FreeBSD
Andres K. Foerster
list at AKFoerster.de
Mon Apr 18 12:16:31 CEST 2005
first of all, please don't get me wrong. I didn't want to complain.
All in all I find FPC is really great.
I wrote this just to show how it could be further improved.
Am Montag, dem 18. Apr 2005 schrieb Marco van de Voort:
> bash is a superset of a sh shell, the .sh extension for bash scripts is
> common, and has nothing to do with GNU. It was already that way on 4.4BSD.
4.4BSD had bash???
And why do you say, it has nothing to do with GNU?
Bash is the Boune Shell replacement from GNU.
Okay, bash is very common nowadays. But for example zsh is also a
superset of sh, but if you use it's extentions without mentioning it,
you also might get very irritated reactions. ;-)
> Maybe. Note that the shellscript _is_ human readable,
Okay. But there should IMHO also be a hint in the docs.
> > Or better rewrite it to be usable with a standard-shell.
> I prefer not, it is not worth the effort.
I'm going have a look at it this week.
Shall I send it to the list, or to whom?
> I could use some help there.
Errm, sorry <duck>
> > You cannot silently expect, that everyone in the world is using GNU!
> We never did such thing
Again: bash is from GNU.
> Define _properly_? The IDE is not configured by the installer. Does it start?
Okay I could install it by hand...
But nevertheless it's a bug in the installer-script.
I had a deeper look at it.
The script says:
| rm -f $EXECDIR/fp
| ln -sf $LIBDIR/fp $EXECDIR/fp
but the package has the binary in bin/, not in lib/...
So the binary is deleted and the symlink points to nowhere.
> Pascal is said to be a B&D language by people that don't grasp certain
> concepts, usually newbies using Basic, or even plain C because it is l33t.
Even ESR says so.
Well, okay, I can live with it, I just was surprised, because I was used
to do so.
More information about the fpc-devel