In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > I think it would work in principle. Package built systems are harder though, > > one doesn't know if they are built with -Ur. > > Just like my answer to Michael. Isn't -Ur a default compiler parameter > set in the Makefiles?
It seems it is now, the toplevel makefile seems to force it. In the past it only did when RELEASE=1 Note that both Michael and Vincent seem to be right, Michael in that dates are checked, and Vincent that it doesn't matter (because -Ur is used so widely) > > Missing that parameter could mean that a later minor revision of a package > > (say package > > 2.6.0-1) has later build dates and will force recompilations. > > That's why I'm thinking of saying "strictly FPC binary releases are > supported". This would be no different to Delphi. It's the drawback > they must accept when they buy the cheaper version, or using the trial > version. I think a careful attempt is the wisest course. But therefore I would start with trials, not binary paid for releases. Just in case you stumble on roadblocks in some popular distro. Another potential caveat is that many distro systems allow to apply distro specific patches over DIST sources. > >From my experience it seems that if you do production work, stick to > officially released FPC versions only. I have had problems with 2.7.1 > and 2.6.x and reverted to using 2.6.0 only, for production code. I can't see why 2.6.0 would be better than fixes branch. Yes, there might be minimal breakage in 2.6.x from time to time, but it also gets you bugfixes earlier, and once a version is stable, you can use it for a while. As for trunk, that is something completely different. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
