[Lazarus] Documentation for the packages shipped with Lazarus

patspiper patspiper at gmail.com
Sat Oct 13 09:31:28 CEST 2012

On 13/10/12 02:47, stdreamer wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 10:56 μμ, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:30:47 +0300
>> stdreamer <stdreamer at freemail.gr> wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 7:08 μμ, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:10:41 +0300
>>>> stdreamer <stdreamer at freemail.gr> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2012 5:27 μμ, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> The package type is not *two* booleans. For instance there is no 
>>>>>> type "not
>>>>>> designtime and not runtime".
>>>>>>> If an overlay is shown then that state is part of the package if 
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> then it is not. This leaves one icon state with no meaning ee. no
>>>>>>> overlay is shown.
>>>>>> The purpose of an overlay is to spot the specials easier.
>>>>>> By far the most packages are "design time and run time". 
>>>>>> Therefore they should
>>>>>> not have any overlay or at most a very plain/unimposing one.
>>>>>> There are three special package types:
>>>>>> design time  - usable by projects, but not compiled into projects
>>>>>> run time - usable by design time packages, but not directly 
>>>>>> installable
>>>>>> run time only - not installable, not even indirectly
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> OK lets take a step back, and see this a bit simplistic.
>>>> If you don't understand one of my points, just ask.
>>>> Do not post my whole answer and then ignore it.
>>> That's a double edged sword for the time being I'll ignore it and move
>>> on to more productive thoughts.
>>>>> 1) The type of a package.
>>>>> A package can be
>>>>> 1) run time package
>>>>> 2) Design time package.
>>>>> 3) Both
>>>> Incomplete. see above.
>>> What is incomplete?
>> There are four types, you gave three.
>>> Which other states you have in mind Installable for instance? In 
>>> that case let me ask you once more. What is the difference
>>> between a run time package and a run time only package?
>> See above.
>>> How can a design
>>> time package, use a run time only package and  be installed in the IDE?
>> It can not.
>>> What is the reason of existence of this option?
>> There are some packages that should never be installed, not even
>> indirectly.
> Yes, you where clear the first time you said that I still do not 
> believe that such a condition is necessary, from lack of experience 
> perhaps.
>>> As for the Boolean part,
>>> What would you answer if I asked you "is that a design time package ?"
>> Do you mean
>> a) can this package be used at design time?
>> b) can this package only be used at design time?
>> c) should this package use type "design time"?
>> d) has the developer decided to use the type "design time"?
> You are being evasive that tells me 2 things. One you do not really 
> care about this conversation, which raises the question why you 
> bothered answering in the first place, and two you see me like some 
> kind of pest which dropped in from no where and spoiled your serenity, 
> which raises the question why should I keep on wasting my time on this.
> Well, my opinion  is in the open if you do fill like explaining I'll 
> probably read it with interest.
> In any case have fun.
Maybe you should re-read and re-assess Mattias' replies. He is afterall 
one of the main core devs and consequently a treasure trove of info. But 
the question "is that a design time package ?" is quite ambiguous and 
can't be answered straight away.

As for the "runtime only" package type, there are packages which should 
not trickle into the IDE be it directly or indirectly as they are 
incompatible (eg: they conflict with LCL). I believe Mattias clarified 
this too.


More information about the Lazarus mailing list