Re: Best approach for a FreePascal Package

[Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost>]

On 25.06.2016 20:42, David Holland wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 10:18:53AM +0200, Daniel ?lschlegel wrote:
>  > I was curious why we haven't FreePascal 3.0 and Lazarus 1.6 in our Pkgsrc
>  > repo. OpenBSD und FreeBSD have versions already. So i looked into the
>  > Makefile and saw for FPC it requires an older FPC version for building the
>  > compiler. We haven't for a long time no FPC in our repo. Nicely the
>  > FreePascal project provides for some architecture older binaries(for NetBSD
>  > i386/AMD64 in version 2.6.4) to bootstrap to 3.0.
>  > 
>  > What is the best approach to create a pkgsrc recipt for that problem? I
>  > have a problem that i need to download a specific binary from Sourceforge,
>  > which have somewhere linker problems(crosscompiled and unmaintained) and
>  > build with this newer versions of fpc. Also, we haven't the full control
>  > about that code or provided version. The limitation of some architectures
>  > doesn't look like best design and creates more exceptions for building
>  > binaries.
> 
> Binary bootstrap kits are in general not desirable and usually
> acceptable only if they've been prepared by a committer (that is,
> someone known who has signed agreements, etc.) -- given recent history
> a binary downloaded from sourceforge is clearly not a good plan.
> 
> There is no other way to build the thing other than with itself?
> 
> . o O ( ...someone wrote a compiler in pascal? )
> 

I packaged suse-fpc. It works for me (for simple hello-like programs).
The only nit is to extract the linking stage from building and fix
linker paths manually.

I leaved repackaging native fpc for someone with Pascal background.