🚀 go-pugleaf

Mikhail Terekhov wrote:
> You are preaching to a priest ;). Yes we use the make utility for
> automated builds, 

Splendid!

> but it is a pain to keep BDS and dcc32 configurations
> in sync. The main obstacle here is the Delphi's inconsistency. First,
> BDS and dcc32 use different configuration files (*.bdsproj and *.cfg)
> and there is no straightforward way to keep them in sync.

I agree. There is an option to completely eliminate the reading of 
config files in dcc32:

--no-config = do not load default DCC32.CFG file

Personally, I prefer to define all configuration options/option sets in 
make to ensure I know exactly what I get. Developers may mess up the 
configs in the bdsproj file, and all of a sudden you're releasing 
products with the wrong switches set.

This is easy enough to do once and for all, using either 
target-conditional macros or relying on defines passed to the make file. 
Then just add those switches to your $(DCC32) macro.

> Definitely lack of out of the box automated build solution as well as
> the *.bdsproj and *.cfg files inconsistency are major warts in Delphi.

The bdsproj files are xml-files, and it should be fairly easy to 
exctract what you need and write to a .cfg-file. WOuld be very easy to 
incorporate in a makefile too :)

> It is pity that Borland can't teach dcc32 to understand *.bdsproj and 
> *.bdsgroup files. That would make the automation process very simple and
> make Delphi ready for big enterprise projects out of the box. May be it
> is worth to put such a request into QC?

I think that would be a very good idea. QC is there for that very 
reason. Support for bdsproj => make would be a neat addition too.

--Jesper