[fpc-pascal] Re: Yet more make file problems: make works, make install fails
Michael Van Canneyt
michael at freepascal.org
Sat Oct 6 14:34:27 CEST 2012
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
> On 6-10-2012 6:52, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>> Still fighting makefiles with my db fpcunit listener.
>> I can get it to compile with fpc make all
>> However make install fails with
>> Installation package fcl-extra for target x86_64-linux succeeded
>> Start compiling package fcl-fpcunit for target x86_64-linux.
>> Compiling fcl-fpcunit/BuildUnit_fcl_fpcunit.pp
>> Compiled package fcl-fpcunit
>> Installing package fcl-fpcunit
>> The installer encountered the following error:
>> Unable to open file "units/x86_64-linux/fpcunit.o"
>> Patch including instructions at
>> What am I doing wrong?
The change you did in fpmake.pp looks correct.
Do not change the Makefile. Just change fpmake.pp, though. That should be enough.
But about the rest, there is lots to say :/
For starters, you are creating a dependency on fcl-db in fcl-fpcunit.
That's not correct, since there is an (implicit) dependency in fcl-db
on fcl-fpcunit for testing, so you create a circular dependency.
The listener should reside in fcl-db, preferrably in a directory src/sqldb/fpcunit.
This will make the dependency of fcl-db on fcl-fpcunit an explicit one.
Regarding the dbreporter unit itself:
I think the explicit dependency on IBConnection is misplaced.
What is more, it will ONLY work on IB, the way you wrote it.
Neither mysql or postgres or ms-sql or oracle will eat any of the statements that you use.
I would suggest only letting it be dependent on sqldb. It's the duty of the user to provide a connection
class preferably by creating a descendent. You can provide descendents for the various TSQLConnection
classes in different units, and let the user use the unit which uses the connection of his choice.
(the descendents can also provide 'correct' SQL statements for that particular connection)
Concerning the routine:
It's far more compact to write this:
It has the benefit of remaining correct when new CPU/OS combinations are added.
I have a lot more remarks, which I will not write here in public.
>From your zip, it looks like you wanted to submit the unit for inclusion in FPC ?
I'm sorry to say that, as it is, this unit will not make it in FPC.
It needs a major redesign from the ground up.
I'm prepared to discuss it in private, if you're interested.
More information about the fpc-pascal