[lazarus] Package System

[Marc Weustink]

At 00:43 3-2-2003 +0100, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:20:24 +0100 (CET)
>Michael.VanCanneyt at wisa.be wrote:

[snip]

> > > =============================================
> > > 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.

They might do, but the nice thing of spliting them up is that you can put 
the design stuff of your component (editors/dialogs etc) in a designtime 
only package and the component parts in a design/runtime package.

> >
> > 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
>differently.

I think the dialogs are OK, one thing that can be improved is the usage of 
directives ($IFDEF or $I) in the package file. Delphi overwrites this info.
(prety annoying if you have a package that is compatible with D4,5,6 but 
requires vcl40, vcl50 or vcl )

Marc