henry.vermaak at gmail.com
Fri Aug 6 18:09:08 CEST 2010
On 6 August 2010 15:50, Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1 at aol.com> wrote:
> Henry Vermaak schrieb:
>>>> Build systems seem to be a constant itch. See a list here:
>>> Shouldn't we add FPC to that list?
>> No, because fpc is a compiler, but we can add fpcmake and fpmake.
> or Lazarus, or FP(?). FPC already introduces the principle, to use an single
> source file for an entire project, and directories dedicated to specific
> targets. The source file specifies the output type (app/lib), and command
> line options select the target. What does a build system need more, apart
> from these options?
Auto select source/paths/components for different back-ends depending
on architectures and options, deal with auto-generated source files,
build installers, run tests, handle parallel builds, handle cross
builds, etc. Why do you think these build systems exist? Many
projects have very complex requirements that you can't solve with "a
single source file for an entire project".
>  Well, sometimes a "--build" switch would be nice, to replace a "make
fpc -B will build everything regardless of what has changed.
>> I really don't have a clue what you mean. The list shows build
>> automation software. A lot of those are platform independent and
>> language dependant. What does this have to do with Basic/Java/.Net?
> For these languages no build system is required, because the same code runs
> on every (supported) platform.
You have to compile .net code, afaik.
More information about the fpc-devel