ZeelandNet Webmail
I would like to create a patch for instantfpc
but would like to ask first here. The patch will add a new extension
(.ppx) to instantfpc and the installers so it get's registered with the
OS after installing.
Is this ok with everybody?
Darius ___
The idea at the time was to have a different fppkg configuration for
each repository, not to have everything in 1 configuration.
I assume that you want something like apt-get, where there is a file
with known repositories, and that fppkg scans all repositories.
I suppose that may be easier. If yo
On Tue, 10 May 2011 08:30:28 +0200 (CEST), Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Darius Blaszyk wrote:
Hi,
I've created a trivial front end for fppkg (see lazarus mailing
list) but working on this I realized that they are not grouped in any
way. Currently with approx. 70 packages
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:17:48 +0200, Sven Barth
wrote:
Am 05.04.2011 04:27, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.04.2011 3:51, Sven Barth wrote:
Both "class helpers" and "record helpers" are implemented and work
as
Delphi compatible as reasonably possible.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Just from my
Thisnfeature is already there. When you use fpmake directly: -f, if
you use
fppkg (what I would recommend): fppkg -c.
Thanks, I will have a look how it works. I'll try to document it on the
wiki.
On the side, fppkg is only for FPC right? So not useful for standalone
projects.
Darius
__
I think it is a good and valuable idea. Do you have any plans to
add
more functionality to it ?
I was thinking about adding a few more helper functions, such as
adding documentation for whole directories at a time. Also the
documentation output should be possible to be set, currently it's in
I think it is a good and valuable idea. Do you have any plans to add
more functionality to it ?
I was thinking about adding a few more helper functions, such as adding
documentation for whole directories at a time. Also the documentation
output should be possible to be set, currently it's in t
ZeelandNet Webmail
Hi,
Today I was playing with FPDoc and I
decided to add creating the documents as a target to fpmake which seems
logical to me. I only did a very basic implementation to show tghe
principle so someone (Joost / Michael??) can shoot at it first before I
burn too much time o
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:28:47 +0100 (CET)
> "Peter Vreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:21:36 +0100 (CET)
>> > "Peter Vreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>[...]
>> >> >> fpc -n -FUunits\i386-win32\ -Fu..\..\src\ -Fuunits\i386-win32\*
>> >> >> myexample.pp
>> >>
> Jonas Maebe schreef:
>>
>> On 20 Aug 2007, at 09:27, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>
- implemented archiving to zip using TZipper (only when no user
assigned
ArchiveFilesProc, because that overrides the command)
>>
>> The snapshots were broken last night:
>>
>> /FPC/home/fpc/snapshot
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Darius Blaszijk wrote:
>
>> So, to list everything on the package creation;
>>
>> Can we have fpmake to create the individual packages, or does fppkg need
>> to be
>> fed with a list of sources per package and package them. I would prefer
>> the
>> first as it will keep t
Ok, then. We have consensus to remove the deps.
I will submit a patch later today.
Darius
>
>
> Op Tue, 12 Jun 2007, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
>> The patch needs some reconsideration.
>>
>> zip.pas (perhaps other units I added also?) have a dependency on zlib.
>> But
>> zlib is in packages/ex
The patch needs some reconsideration.
zip.pas (perhaps other units I added also?) have a dependency on zlib. But
zlib is in packages/extra and not packages/base like paszlib. Does that
mean that zip.pas cannot reside at base/paszlib? Probably yes, unless I
remove the dep (if possible). Or should I
13 matches
Mail list logo
