On 2013-04-30 08:07, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Well, I would be to blame for this.
:-)
> But when I do domething like that, then only the backend options would be
> allowed
> to differ. I see no need to put all options in backend-specific option sets:
> the input files etc. should not differ per back-end.
Correct, and that is what I had in mind too. The <unit> and
<description> parts are common to all output formats.
As the XML snippet from my previous email shows…
1) The <options> node will probably need to change by adding a format
attribute. That way we can have “options” per output format.
2) The <package> node will need to change, or at least some attributes
will have to move to a different location in the XML. Currently
there is only one “output” attribute value. The problem with that
is that value changes for different output formats.
For example: IPF and CHM specifies a file with different extension,
HTML specifies a directory path etc.
> A simpler solution could also be the support for an include of a separate
> file.
> Then you could put common things (list of files) in one file, and create
> top-level files per format you want to produce.
I would prefer a single xml project file if you don't mind. It will be
much easier to manage and edit.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
