[fpc-pascal] FP IDE sources

[Florian Klämpfl]

Am 14.03.2024 um 11:04 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Karoly Balogh via fpc-pascal wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez via fpc-pascal wrote:
>>
>>> I thought "packages" were libraries not applications, as there is an
>>> "utils" directory with programs.
>>
>> I agree, I'm also not very fond of the IDE being in packages, but most of
>> the team considers it a legacy piece of code (which it is, no argument
>> there), and at least this way it doesn't need constant special treatment,
>> unlike when it was in the root folder of the repo under "ide". It's less
>> "in the way".
> 
> Still, it is more logical to place it under utils, with the rest of the
> programs.
> 
> The argument about the time to compile seems simply false to me:
> 
> If you consider the FPC toplevel 'make all' as the only command to
> issue, then you may win some time, although I doubt it will be that much.
> 
> But 99% of the time, you don't need to recompile the utilities.

I do always a make all as it takes only a few more seconds than a make 
cycle and then I am sure everything builds.

> 
> I certainly do not:
> I usually do a make cycle followed by a compilation of the rtl/packages 
> with debug info.
> 
> So if we moved the IDE to utils where it logically belongs, I would 
> actually be winning time, contrary to the argument for having it in 
> packages.

As I moved it, my thinking was that it is not really a utility but a 
package (in particular in the sense of the installer). And having 
executables is also the case for other packages.

> 
> To me it therefore seems a better idea to move the IDE to utils, and to 
> have a
> toplevel make command that does the same as 'make all' simply without the
> utilities. Or have a 'NOUTILS=1' define.
>
It increases build time if one want to test that everything builds with 
no real gain and being not a utility?