[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Questions for new package: Freepascal



> > So you always have to provide a binary executable, with which the
> > compiler could be build.
> > 
> > I could include the compiler-binaries in a second 'source-file' into the
> > RPM. That should work. But I dont know if you guys would appreciate
> > that.
> 
> You might want to look at the discussion of a similar issue for the ghc
> Haskell compiler discussed earlier:
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-
> May/msg00450.html

Large difference here is that bootstrapping is easy. It's the only way to
build Freepascal (fpc) so it has to be done anyway.

I see a few options:
- The manual compilation into the buildsystem. But in the thread that you
mentioned they find that a bad idea. (This is how Debian did it 5 years
ago, now each version is bootstrapped from the last version)
- Making a seed package with the binary tar's. I personally don't like
that option really much.
- Make a source package, with the start-conpiler binary from where
the bootstrapping can start. (This could be the previous version of the
compiler, or the version of the package itself. With that last compiler
you don't put 'strange' binary into the system so I would prefer that,
while it's not the official bootstrap-mechanism) (This is how Gentoo
handles fpc)
- Freepascal can compile into a clear assembly file which you can feed to
AS. So instead of the binary in the previous option, use the 
assembly-version.

I should choose for the third option. The fourth is also
possible. Then you don't put a binary into the system, 'officially'. you
But that's more symbolic...

Joost van der Sluis.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]