[lazarus] Package System

Mattias Gaertner nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de
Sun Feb 2 18:30:03 EST 2003

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:20:24 +0100 (CET)
Michael.VanCanneyt at wisa.be wrote:

> [cut]
> >
> > Installing a package:
> > Because fpc does not fully support libs, we can't add/remove components
> > at runtime. We have
> > to restart the IDE. Gladly lazarus starts a lot quicker than Delphi. The
> > installation itself is done internally by adding the package unit to a
> > uses section. The IDE will have dialogs and will handle most of this
> > automatically just like Delphi.
> > For example:
> > To install a package the following five steps are needed:
> > Open a package file, compile it, install it, compile IDE and restart.
> > Normally a user will simply open the package file and click 'install'.
> > The IDE will automatically compile the package, then ask the user if the
> > IDE should be recompiled. After that the IDE gives a note, that the user
> > can now restart the IDE.
> 1. Note that under windows the compile will fail, because a running binary
> is
>    locked by windows.

Ok, so we have to give a different target to fpc for the IDE executable.
Maybe 'newlazarus'. And then we need an alias program 'startlazarus' to
delete the old exe, rename the new and start it.

> 2. It would be a good idea to have most IDE units in compiled form on a
>    separate location, to speed up compilation.

What do you mean with separate location?

> > =============================================
> > Projects will get 'package dependencies'. This is simply a list of
> > package names plus minimum versions.
> >
> >
> > =============================================
> > Missing points:
> > - design time / run time packages. Do we need this distinction?
> _Absolutely_
> I have gained lots of experience with packages at work, and you should
> definitely make the distinction. Not only because users are forced to make
> a clean design, but also because it makes run-time binaries smaller.
> You wouldn't want half of lazarus ending up in a user binary...

Why is the user forced to do this? The default under Delphi is a combined
design+runtime package. And AFAIK the distinction is an artificial one. You
can create small binaries without the Usage options. I also vote to force
the user to make a clean design, but I don't see how Delphi helps here. Most
lazy users will simply create combined packages, don't they.

> > - component icons: The current solution is to add a lazarus
> >   resource with the classname.
> >   Sufficient? Or is the risk of redefinition too big?
> Sufficient, Delphi uses this too.
> > - Naming. For example: Maybe 'package dependencies' is not as
> >   readable as 'package requirements' or 'required packages'.
> > - IDE front end
> You mean a kind of 'Open Tools API ?'

This can come later. I was asking if the Delphi dialogs and options for
packages are intuitive, efficient and sufficient or if lazarus should do it


More information about the Lazarus mailing list