<html><head></head><body><div>Hi Paul</div><div class="-x-evo-signature-wrapper"><span><pre><br></pre></span></div><div>On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 19:12 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>Hi all,
So today I downloaded the new version of Lazarus (1.6RC1). It seems to
build just fine, without changes. My question from below still stands.
My proposal is to drop the chm file, unless somebody objects (Abou?).
</pre></blockquote><div>Yes I had a small concern: Pressing F1 on any identifier should continue to bring help.</div><div>I tested it and seems HTML docs works well so maybe we can drop it.</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>
Paul
On 21-11-15 13:03, Paul Gevers wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
Yet another reproducibility issue question. Lazarus doesn't build
reproducible, because one of the files we build (with tools from fpc) is
the lcl.chm file which is documentation in MS Windows HtmlHelp format.
My question is, is this the preferred format in the Lazarus IDE? If not,
I think it is best to stop shipping it in the Debian package as the
format is "non-native".
</blockquote></pre></blockquote><div>For me the fact that it is non native is not a problem. The only problem is the date issue.</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre><blockquote type="cite">
I talked to pabs about this on IRC today (he even wrote the
reverse-engineered spec of the format) and he thought that even on
Windows this format is deprecated.
</blockquote></pre></blockquote><div>I personally like that format as it compacts the size of help files. As long as there are viewers and compilers for it I don't consider it depreciated.</div><div>However maybe this is a bit nostalgic from my side.</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre><blockquote type="cite">
The alternative is to patch the source in fpc to honor SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
(also) for chm creation, but currently the only package that builds chm
files with that tool is Lazarus.
</blockquote></pre></blockquote><div>This does not mean that other users do not use this tool and if it happens that one of these tools will end in Debian we will ask us the same question again.</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre><blockquote type="cite">
So what do we think is best, also effort and maintainable wise? I tend
to drop the file.
</blockquote></pre></blockquote><div>I tend to fix a program that we are shipping especially that we know hos to do it.</div><div>I can have a trial this WE</div><div class="-x-evo-signature-wrapper"><span><pre>--
Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir
</pre><div><br></div></span></div></body></html>