<html><head><style>pre,code,address {
margin: 0px;
}
h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
margin-top: 0.2em;
margin-bottom: 0.2em;
}
ol,ul {
margin-top: 0em;
margin-bottom: 0em;
}
blockquote {
margin-top: 0em;
margin-bottom: 0em;
}
</style></head><body><div>On Fri, 2026-07-17 at 21:33 +0100, Peter Blackman wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On 17/07/2026 19:36, Abou Al Montacir wrote:<br></div><div> it makes little sens to use it without LCL packages.<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed. It would be pointless if it depended on external lcl packages.<br></div><div><br></div><div>So its completely self-contained (lcl is bundled). No other laz or lcl package is needed with it to build lazarus apps.<br></div><div>Also, with minimal dependency on the upstream structure (providing make .. lazbuild works!)<br></div><div>it will be trivially easy to build using lazarus trunk and/or upstream major version bumps.</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>No-one is obliged to use it.</div></blockquote><div>For sure, but then same binary names are shipped by two packages?</div><div>This means also that two set of same libraries (units) is shipped by two packages?</div><div><span><pre>-- <br></pre><pre>Cheers,
Mazen Neifer
Debian Developer
</pre></span></div></body></html>