<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#2e3436" link="#2a76c6" vlink="#2e3436"><div>Hi All,</div><div><br></div><div>On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 09:34 +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Paul,</div><div><br></div><div>On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 08:44 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre><blockquote type="cite">Probably none of them need to define FPCDIR.</blockquote>Currently Lazarus FTBFS without it.ยน<br></pre></blockquote><div>I'll have a look at it and try to fix it this WE.</div></blockquote><div>I could finally find time for this issue. There was an issue with fpcmake looking for fpc executable using a wrong name on amd64 architecture.</div><div>FPC executable is ppcx64 while fpcmake was looking for ppcx86_64. I had a commit fixing this issue: cff270e15f4d9342ea6918a4b69d038df5184af2</div><div><br></div><div>However this commit revealed another bug: currently we are shipping Makefiles.fpc in fpc-source package, which install to /usr/share/fpc-source/${FPCVER}.</div><div>However fpcmake seems too look for them at units directories. This seems more logical and make me remeber the lpk files for Lazarus.</div><div>Also by shipping Makefile.fpc with binaries we get rid of the constraint of depending on fpc-source to be able to build any fpc programe using fpcmake.</div><div><br></div><div>To be discussed more.</div><div><div style="white-space: normal;"><span><pre>-- </pre><pre>Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir</pre></span></div></div></body></html>