[lazarus] Clean build from nothing

[cryst]

My education continues....

:)

I thought for sure that I saw some C files.  OK so I need FPC installed
before I install FPC. I understand that now. I'll start again from scratch
tonight and make notes of what I do. (and were I had to backtrack). I'm
going to try for fpc 1.0.8 from the CVS since it is so near release any
differences between what I get and what the release is should presumably be
small.

I am shocked that FPC doesn't use libc at all. More then that FPC doesn't
use any C code to build itself. Is this by design? Why avoid all that good
code? I assume there is a provision for FPC to interface with C isn't there?

Chris Bruner

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco van de Voort" <marcov at stack.nl>
To: <lazarus at miraclec.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [lazarus] Clean build from nothing


>
> The point that FPC is written in itself has already been made, but...
>
> Another shock might be that FPC doesn't use libc, but interfaces with
Linux
> (the kernel) itself.
>
> > My point (rather badly made I admit) is that there are standard ways of
> > installing software, and it appears that fpc (and lazarus by extension)
do
> > not follow that standard.
>
> There is no standard on Linux. There are only provisions for C programs
that
> follow some scheme, nothing more. If you step outside it, there is no
> support.
>
> FPC supports multiple platforms not just *nix. You could also say th
>
> There are no Pascal headers (or something that they could be produced from
> except from manual labour), no generic installers nothing.
>
> Configure is nothing but a large patchy shellscript to query a standard C
> compiler. It is nothing to do with the OS.
>
> > So any hopes of getting more people involved are immediatly stunted.
>
> Most people by far use binary packages on *nix. In general FPC's system is
much
> more userfriendly than the routine, it is
>
> > The rule of thumb should be, as you are move from doing things in the
> > "normal/standard" way it should be documented more and more carefully to
> > keep the level of obviousness from disappearing over the horizon.
>
> Till now, most developpers quickly got the hang of it. Maily also because
> the core developpers are on the diverse lists to provide direct one-on-one
> tips.
>
> Still some more documentation to the buildproces would be nice, but it
seems
> that you've already missed the make cycle faq (which is a sub-page of the
> real faq?) It is outdated, but addresses the issues somewhat. I'll see if
I
> can update it a bit with the info I wrote earlier on the list.
>
> > (and keep in mind my horizons as a non-user are quite different then you
> > as someone who has gotten things working).
>
> I started that way too :-)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>      To unsubscribe: mail lazarus-request at miraclec.com with
>                 "unsubscribe" as the Subject
>    archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives