I saw that the fpmake programs of the fpc sources contain the unit/include file dependencies.
Why?
(fpc finds the unit/include file dependencies automatically.)

Is there a tool to create them automatically?
Can I use file masks?

Mattias

For the zip archive creation. All files are needed.

Is there a tool to create them automatically?

Not yet. This is planned.

Can I use file masks?

I think yes ?

Michael.

Zitat von Michael Van Canneyt :

Apparently for the 'clean' too.

Why does it warn, when the files to be cleaned are already cleaned?

Warning: File "units/i386-darwin/allcodetoolunits.o" does not exist Warning: File "units/i386-darwin/allcodetoolunits.ppu" does not exist

> Is there a tool to create them automatically? Not yet. This is planned.

Come on. You didn't add the 14 thousand filenames manually, did you?

> Can I use file masks? I think yes ?

I only found a mask for Sources. Somewhere else where I can look?

Mattias

Zitat von Michael Van Canneyt :

IMO this is a normal operation:
svn up && fppkg clean build

Questions:
Why a warning instead of a hint?
Why not explain why it was searched?

Newbies will get confused by such warnings.

If you think that the message is needed, then maybe use this:

Hint: File "units/i386-darwin/allcodetoolunits.o" was already deleted

You call yourself a programmer? Shame on you. ;)

I realize that for the LCL, this will be a rather largish job :-)

I will rather write a tool than add them manually.

That's where I looked. Should I copy the SearchFile procedure?

Mattias

Under normal operation, this should not happen ?

The unit source names were added from the Makefile.fpc (there is a conversion mode) but the rest was added manually.

I realize that for the LCL, this will be a rather largish job :-)

packages/fpmkunit/src/fpmkunit.pp :-)

Michael.

Zitat von Michael Van Canneyt :

I created a bug report.

It's hard to believe that this was easier, but I try. :)

Before I can write such a tool I have to understand fpmake, its features, its goals and its bugs.

The single parameter Options is a show stopper for the LCL, because I use often flags like -gh plus a few -d flags for the experimental features.

[...] > That's where I looked. Should I copy the SearchFile procedure? Can't you use it instead of copy it ?

It has no interface.

And btw, I don't understand why it uses:
    if FindFirst(SearchDir+'*',faAnyFile and faDirectory,Info)=0 then

faAnyFile and faDirectory = faDirectory.

This works under Unix, because FindFirst ignores the attribute. But I wonder, why it works under windows.

Mattias

It should maybe be reduced to a debug message, just to see what the clean command is actually trying to do.

Ah, but for the RTL, adding them manually was less job than writing a tool. Basically, I'm lazy :)

> I realize that for the LCL, this will be a rather largish job :-) I will rather write a tool than add them manually.

I was hoping someone would volunteer :-)

For the LCL, writing the tool is probably less work (given the codetools) than adding them manually, so basically, you're just lazy too. This way I don't need to feel too ashamed about myself :)

Can't you use it instead of copy it ?

Michael.

I saw it :-)

I understand.
Maybe we should change it to tstrings, and say that there should be one option per line ? That avoids the hassle of having to parse the Options string for quoted params.

No comprendo ?

And btw, I don't understand why it uses: if FindFirst(SearchDir+'*',faAnyFile and faDirectory,Info)=0 then faAnyFile and faDirectory = faDirectory.

Indeed,
1) it should be or instead of and
2) anyfilemask should be used instead of '*' :-)

Michael.

Zitat von Michael Van Canneyt :

for

quoted params.

Sounds good.

SearchFile in fpmkunit is only defined in the implementation. I can of course use it via linker tricks, but I don't like that.

Don't know.

Mattias

Most packages ppudump output with a sed script was used to create the initial list. The cleanup and adjustments for multiple platforms was done manually.

Peter

Ah. We can add it to the interface if you think this is useful.

I'll have a look as soon as I find the time :-)

Michael.

Indeed, I forgot about this:
That was round 2, proving that Peter did a more thorough job than I did in round 1 :-)

Michael.

In our previous episode, Peter Vreman said:

( fpmkunit/examples/ppu2fpmake.sh )