Online Package Manager

[dbannon]

....
I added the package. Thank you! A demo project would be nice.

> And you should write a wiki article in which you explain what this package is good for and how it can be applied.

Even a just a few lines in the OPM content would be a help.  The author only needed to copy the brief summary from the original C++ source site -

Lightweight read-write locks for thread synchronization on Windows that run on Windows XP and up.

I believe that maybe, sometimes, new entries should require that sort of information before being added.

Note "should" means unless its an exceptional case. Its not "must".

Davo

[Red_prig]

Added to package description, added demo, plz update

[wp]

I believe that maybe, sometimes, new entries should require that sort of information before being added.

Note "should" means unless its an exceptional case. Its not "must".

That's a good idea. But I would say it should be a "must". I'd strongly vote for a new strategy in OPM to accept new packages only if they contain a demo application and at least a minimum amount of documentation, say: a readme file or the link to a wiki article.

[balazsszekely]

@Red_prig

Added to package description, added demo, plz update

I updated the package. Thank you!

@dbannon, @wp

I believe that maybe, sometimes, new entries should require that sort of information before being added.
Note "should" means unless its an exceptional case. Its not "must".

That's a good idea. But I would say it should be a "must". I'd strongly vote for a new strategy in OPM to accept new packages only if they contain a demo application and at least a minimum amount of documentation, say: a readme file or the link to a wiki article.

I would say the following entries should be mandatory:
1. lpk file
   - Short description
   - Author
   - License
2. Demo example
3. At least a minimum amount of documentation
Anyways very few packages are added lately to OPM. I will pay more attention in the future.

[dbannon]

If and when I get the new Examples Project working, I'll be nagging OPM authors to add a demo and a metadata file !

You will be run off your feet !

Maybe ....

 

Davo

[lainz]

Hi GetMem! Can you add BGRAControls v7.4?
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,24176.msg436974.html#msg436974

Thanks! Have a great weekend!

[balazsszekely]

Hi GetMem! Can you add BGRAControls v7.4?
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,24176.msg436974.html#msg436974

Thanks! Have a great weekend!

I updated the package, thanks for the new version. Have a great weekend!

[d.ioannidis]

Hi,

  could you please add the hidapi library bindings 0.3.0 0.3.2 package from https://github.com/dioannidis/HIDAPI.pas to OPM ?

  There is a demo app and I think that the relevant description fields are populated. If there is something that I need to add/edit/change for it to be included I'm happy to do it.

regards,

[balazsszekely]

@Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

could you please add the hidapi library bindings 0.3.0 0.3.2 package from https://github.com/dioannidis/HIDAPI.pas to OPM ?

I added the package. Thank you!

[d.ioannidis]

Hi,

@Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

could you please add the hidapi library bindings 0.3.0 0.3.2 package from https://github.com/dioannidis/HIDAPI.pas to OPM ?

I added the package. Thank you!

is there a mechanism to maintain the OPM package ( updating, made some version obsolete etc ) or must be handled by you ?

( I admit didn't read all 144 pages ... )

EDIT: There was some errors that was are fixed in 0.3.2 ....

regards,

[balazsszekely]

@Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

is there a mechanism to maintain the OPM package ( updating, made some version obsolete etc ) or must be handled by you ?

There is a way to push a newer version of your package. You can read more about the mechanism here: https://wiki.freepascal.org/Online_Package_Manager.
Unfortunately users must enable "Check external repositories for package update" in OPM->Options. It's disabled by default, because some people did not like the fact that OPM connects to various external sites. Basically it's a working, but invisible feature. I prefer to update the packages manually.

EDIT: There was some errors that was are fixed in 0.3.2 ....

I downloaded again the package from your github page, but the lpk file still indicates 0.3.0. Am I missing something?

[d.ioannidis]

@Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

is there a mechanism to maintain the OPM package ( updating, made some version obsolete etc ) or must be handled by you ?

< snip >

I prefer to update the packages manually.

OK . Thx for your work !

EDIT: There was some errors that was are fixed in 0.3.2 ....

I downloaded again the package from your github page, but the lpk file still indicates 0.3.0. Am I missing something?

No you didn't missed anything. I missed to update the package version, apologies. Now it's fixed.

regards,

[balazsszekely]

@Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

No you didn't missed anything. I missed to update the package version, apologies. Now it's fixed.

Thank you. I updated the package.

[AlexTP]

The ready package
https://gitlab.com/bobby100/tiplabel

[balazsszekely]

The ready package
https://gitlab.com/bobby100/tiplabel

Is there some kind of documentation and a demo example?