<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#2e3436" link="#2a76c6" vlink="#2e3436"><div>Hi Paul,</div><div><br></div><div>On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 21:33 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>Hi,
On 07-11-16 18:23, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
The need for user to compile stuff inside Lazarus sources normally
occurs only for packages (which may be needed by user's applications
or other packages), not for applications (*.lpi).
</blockquote>
When using IDE, the packages get compiled into ${HOME}/.lazarus.
If you want to package them then just compile them after compiling the
IDE. Please see my previous mail.
</blockquote>
The point is that I want to automatically test that what we ship is
compilable by the user (to check e.g. that we didn't miss shipping
stuff). Obviously, that (automatic testing) can't be done using the IDE,
and I understood from Michalis that lazbuild was the right tool. Seems
like he wasn't aware that it wasn't.
</pre></blockquote><div>I agree with the goal (test delivered stuff), and agree with the tool (lazbuild). I'm not sure I understand your statement about lazbuild is not the right tool. If a package builds using lazbuild, then it will build using IDE. The opposite is also true, if it does not build using lazbuild it will not build using IDE. Of course the the issue is that you don't have any way to let lazbuild chenge output dir except the sed on lpk or cp -Rfpl of /usr/lib/lazarys. The latest one is my preferred.</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>
So, it looks like I can check most (but not all) *.lpk packages with
lazbuild. As the IDE seems to be doing stuff differently, I can't test
that properly.
</pre></blockquote><div>I think I need more clarification of above statement.</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>
Interesting note: the lazarus source ships multiple *.lpk files that
can't be build using only the lazarus source as the dependencies are NOT
in the tar ball. What do you think, should we not ship these *.lpk files
as they are useless without the proper source? E.g. lazarus doesn't have
the source for something called bgrabitmappack:
</pre></blockquote><div>That we can ask upstream to explain how do they expect to get sources of missing packages. It may just be a bug in packaging.</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>
paul@testavoira ~ $ HOME=/tmp lazbuild -B
/usr/lib/lazarus/1.6/components/tachart/tachartbgra.lpk
ERROR: Broken dependency: TAChartBgra 1.0->bgrabitmappack
paul@testavoira ~/lazarus $ rgrep -i bgrabitmappack *
components/tachart/tachartbgra.lpk: <PackageName
Value="bgrabitmappack"/>
components/tachart/demo/bgra/bgrademo.lpi: <PackageName
Value="bgrabitmappack"/>
components/tachart/demo/bgra/bgrademo.lpr: bgrabitmappack, tachartbgra,
tachartlazaruspkg,</pre></blockquote><div><span><div>Seems a third party project: <a href="https://github.com/bgrabitmap/lazpaint/tree/master/bgrabitmap">https://github.com/bgrabitmap/lazpaint/tree/master/bgrabitmap</a></div><div>there youc an find <a href="https://github.com/bgrabitmap/lazpaint/blob/master/bgrabitmap/bgrabitmappack.lpk">https://github.com/bgrabitmap/lazpaint/blob/master/bgrabitmap/bgrabitmappack.lpk</a></div><div>and <a href="https://github.com/bgrabitmap/lazpaint/blob/master/bgrabitmap/bgrabitmappack.pas">https://github.com/bgrabitmap/lazpaint/blob/master/bgrabitmap/bgrabitmappack.pas</a></div><div><br></div><div>I hope this helps</div><pre>-- <br></pre><pre>Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir</pre></span></div></body></html>