[To the bug instead of the list, so the response of Abou is also recorded there.]
On 21-07-16 12:50, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 20:58 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> I am not sure if Abou contacted upstream >> about this. > I've contacted upstream and they don't seem to care about Debian > packaging these components, they prefer they get compiled by user when > needed. Anyway many compilers/interpreters are going in that direction > with their own package manager like (pip, npm, ...). Ack. But this is a fully unacceptable for packages that (build) depend on such packages. For all these options people are also making Debian packages of popular "upstream packages" and for several there are helper tools to make it a nearly trivial job to do so. For Lazarus we will need to provide something that works in Debian as well (at least that is how I feel it). > More and more > packages will be provided using fppkg (see fppkg -h) and we should be > able to handle them. > > Now our issue is with packages that are provided in Lazarus sources, not > using fppkg. So these are in half way. Sources are there but not > compilation. This makes the use much more complex for us, but users have > a very user friendly wizard to do it. > > Unfortunately I don't have enough time to do the complete analysis of > what needs to be done and how. So for now I can only propose to add some > of these packages manually to the build target using a patch against the > make files or the rules file. I'll see what I can do next time I touch lazarus (I mean, patching the build as I don't have the skills and Pascal understanding to do the fppkg integration work). As always, patches are welcome. Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
