Hello,
today I branched branches/fixes_2_6, the basis for a new fixes branch that
will become 2.6.0 eventually.
After branching I updated the trunk version to 2.7.1, which might need your
build and package scripts to be adapted, as well as the symlinks of ppc386
on *nix.
Before branching all mak
On 08/03/2011 04:55 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Before branching all makefiles were regenerated, so an update will be big.
OK, But why does svn show many Makefiles as conflicting instead of just
updating them ?
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist
In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said:
> >
> > Before branching all makefiles were regenerated, so an update will be big.
> >
>
> OK, But why does svn show many Makefiles as conflicting instead of just
> updating them ?
Most likely because you have local modifications to those files, fro
On 08/03/2011 05:55 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Most likely because you have local modifications to those files, from own
running of fpcmake.
I never intentionally made modifications or used dpcmake.
Nonetheless I often get one or two conflicts.
I suppose I should delete everything and rest
On 03 Aug 2011, at 18:03, Michael Schnell wrote:
> Or is the another option to have svn get the current version of everything ?
Execute the following command in the top-level checkout directory:
svn revert -R .
Jonas___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> Hello,
>
> today I branched branches/fixes_2_6, the basis for a new fixes branch that
> will become 2.6.0 eventually.
>
> After branching I updated the trunk version to 2.7.1, which might need your
> build and package scripts to be adapt
In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
> > build and package scripts to be adapted, as well as the symlinks of ppc386
> > on *nix.
> >
> > Before branching all makefiles were regenerated, so an update will be big.
>
> Hi Marco,
> I got the new sources and tried to compile on WinXP:
And you
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
>> > build and package scripts to be adapted, as well as the symlinks of ppc386
>> > on *nix.
>> >
>> > Before branching all makefiles were regenerated, so an update will be big.
>>
>> Hi Marc
On 03 Aug 2011, at 19:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> I use ppc386 2.4.3 to compile and tools in /branches/fixes_2_4/install/binw32
> With configuration I can compile /branches/fixes_2_4 and /trunk
>
> Where I got data2inc.exe
As Marco said, it is part of any default FPC installation that you downl
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 03 Aug 2011, at 19:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>> I use ppc386 2.4.3 to compile and tools in /branches/fixes_2_4/install/binw32
>> With configuration I can compile /branches/fixes_2_4 and /trunk
>>
>> Where I got data2inc.exe
>
> As Marco s
In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
> Sorry Jonas, but I always compile two versions (fixes_2_4 and trunk)
> using this script:
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus#Compiling.2Finstalling_FPC_and_Lazarus_from_Sources_of_SVN_.28Win32.29
> Always worked and some people used this
On 03/08/2011 19:01, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Please always start from a *full* installation of the latest official release
before reporting build problems. In 99.9% of the cases it solves all problems.
I had the same problem recently (data2
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>
>> On 03 Aug 2011, at 19:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>>
>>> I use ppc386 2.4.3 to compile and tools in
>>> /branches/fixes_2_4/install/binw32
>>> With configuration I can compile /branches
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
>> Sorry Jonas, but I always compile two versions (fixes_2_4 and trunk)
>> using this script:
>> http://wiki.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus#Compiling.2Finstalling_FPC_and_Lazarus_from_Sourc
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Martin wrote:
> ---
> data2inc seems to be part of fpc - I haven't seen any 3rd party package of
> this name (at least my older fedora does not offer it on it's own).
>
> So I wonder, if it is build from pascal source, then why can't that be part
> of the build proc
In our previous episode, Martin said:
> data2inc seems to be part of fpc - I haven't seen any 3rd party package
> of this name (at least my older fedora does not offer it on it's own).
>
> So I wonder, if it is build from pascal source, then why can't that be
> part of the build process. I fit
In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
> >> How I compiled before without having to compile the file data2inc?
> >
> > You simply didn't have encountered the situation that requires that file.
> > But that situation is a definite possibility, which why it is packaged with
> > every release f
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Martin said:
>
>> data2inc seems to be part of fpc - I haven't seen any 3rd party package
>> of this name (at least my older fedora does not offer it on it's own).
>>
>> So I wonder, if it is build from pascal sou
In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
> >
> > Every succesful "make all" generates a data2inc, and every "make install"
> > installs it into the relevant "bin" directory.
>
> So, I can put a old data2inc in /utils and to run 'make all'.
In your PATH, or pass it with DATA2INC=(full path of
On 03/08/2011 19:55, Marco van de Voort wrote:
That means that this problem wouldn't be happening if those snapshots were
properly installed.
Every succesful "make all" generates a data2inc, and every "make install"
installs it into the relevant "bin" directory.
Indeed it exists.
"properly in
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
>> >
>> > Every succesful "make all" generates a data2inc, and every "make install"
>> > installs it into the relevant "bin" directory.
>>
>> So, I can put a old data2inc in /utils and to run
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Martin wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 19:55, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>
>> That means that this problem wouldn't be happening if those snapshots were
>> properly installed.
>>
>> Every succesful "make all" generates a data2inc, and every "make install"
>> installs it into
In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
>
> This problem occurs just on Windows, ie, only Windows must have the
> data2inc.exe before run 'make all'?
> Sorry... but I never do this... I know, I know... 'stockmarket' right?
No, it is universal. Some platforms (or better, filesystems) have a
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said:
>>
>> This problem occurs just on Windows, ie, only Windows must have the
>> data2inc.exe before run 'make all'?
>> Sorry... but I never do this... I know, I know... 'stockmarket' right?
>
> N
On 03 Aug 2011, at 22:05, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> I have INSTALL_PREFIX=c:\pp and then have
>> c:\pp\bin\i386-win32 in my path.
>
> The same for me:
> ...
> make clean all INSTALL_PREFIX=%myFPC% PP=%mybinutils%\ppc386.exe
> ...
> set
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 03 Aug 2011, at 22:05, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>> I have INSTALL_PREFIX=c:\pp and then have
>>> c:\pp\bin\i386-win32 in my path.
>>
>> The same for me:
>> ...
>> make clean all
On 08/03/2011 06:01 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Execute the following command in the top-level checkout directory:
svn revert -R .
Thanks this seems to have worked.
Maybe my fault is that I always do "svn checkout" instead of "svn update".
Should I better do "update" ?
Thanks,
-Michael
_
After reverting any "make" prompts me to run fpcmake.
doing "fpcmake -r"
claims to write lots of help files, but does not change the message from
"make"
What am I doing wrong ?
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http
On 04 Aug 2011, at 09:29, Michael Schnell wrote:
> After reverting any "make" prompts me to run fpcmake.
>
> doing "fpcmake -r"
>
> claims to write lots of help files, but does not change the message from
> "make"
>
> What am I doing wrong ?
Not posting the full command you are executing nor
On 08/04/2011 11:27 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Not posting the full command you are executing nor the full error message.
GRRR !
The error message was something like "The Makefile doesn't support
target, please run fpcmake first"
But I can't recreate this now any more. But I get another error
On 04 Aug 2011, at 11:49, Michael Schnell wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 11:27 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>
>> Not posting the full command you are executing nor the full error message.
> GRRR !
>
> The error message was something like "The Makefile doesn't support target,
> please run fpcmake first"
>
On 08/04/2011 11:48 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Try updating from svn, Joost should have just fixed this problem.
Wonderful !
This worked:
mschnell@mschnell-Linux:~/Downloads/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler> ./ppc386
Free Pascal Compile
In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said:
> The error message was something like "The Makefile doesn't support
> target, please run fpcmake first"
I know it is solved, but:
This sounds like path/installation problems, the makefile didn't find a
compiler or
fpc.exe and couldn't determine d
In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said:
> Wonderful !
> This worked:
>
>
> mschnell@mschnell-Linux:~/Downloads/svn/fpc/trunk/compiler> ./ppc386
> Free Pascal Compiler version 2.7.1 [2011/08/04] for i386
> -
On 08/04/2011 12:39 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Make install does NOT create the symlink, you need to do that manually.
So erase the old symlink in ~/bin/ to ~/lib/fpc/2.5.1/ppc386 and replace it
with one to ~/lib/fpc/2.7.1/ppc386
I did know what to do :) and of course it did work.
The fu
On 3 August 2011 16:55, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> today I branched branches/fixes_2_6, the basis for a new fixes branch that
> will become 2.6.0 eventually.
Yeah!!! Finally I can start using some of the new features in what was
known as trunk. I'll update and start testing from tomorrow. Thank
Is this "branching" somehow related to preparation of release some next
version of FPC (2.5.x ? or so) ?
I am asking because, there are waiting some bugs/features which I would
be happy see fixed before any major release.
Can I see somewhere on web some planed time schedule or anouncements
about
Hi,
On 4 August 2011 14:21, LacaK wrote:
> Is this "branching" somehow related to preparation of release some next
> version of FPC (2.5.x ? or so) ?
Yes, it's for the next major FPC release.
> I am asking because, there are waiting some bugs/features which I would be
> happy see fixed before a
In our previous episode, LacaK said:
> Is this "branching" somehow related to preparation of release some next
> version of FPC (2.5.x ? or so) ?
Yes and no. It is the preparation of a whole new series of releases, 2.6.x.
The primary branching of a fixes branch is the first step of this process.
I think there will be some RC1 or so in september.
Ok, so there is enought time before.
Can I post here list of registered bugs (fcl-db), which will be good
commit ?
(or you are busy with other task and I must be patient and wait ;-))
TIA
-Laco.
__
On 4/8/2011 09:21, LacaK wrote:
Is this "branching" somehow related to preparation of release some
next version of FPC (2.5.x ? or so) ?
I am asking because, there are waiting some bugs/features which I
would be happy see fixed before any major release.
Me too.
Specifically http://bugs.freepa
On 04 Aug 2011, at 14:51, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
It would be very nice if you can notify use a week or two before such
a branch. That way we know we need to finish up with what we are doing
if we want those features in the next major release.
Branching for a major release is most appropriat
On 4 August 2011 17:09, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> last minute changes have been committed. Quickly committing a bunch of major
> changes would mainly serve to delay the branching, or they might not be
> included in the branch anyway.
Fair enough.
The changes I am referring to was discussed in private
On 04 Aug 2011, at 17:50, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> The changes I am referring to was discussed in private by a few
> developers, and I believe it was implemented about a year ago, so not
> really "last minute". It's new code that adds additional functionality
> to existing RTL classes, but will
In our previous episode, LacaK said:
> >
>
> Can I post here list of registered bugs (fcl-db), which will be good
> commit ?
You can always post updates. Short, well prepared and to the point is best.
The database backlog is 100+, so we all miss stuff from time to time.
> (or you are busy wi
On Thursday, 4 August 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 04 Aug 2011, at 17:50, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> Then it might still get merged, e.g. for 2.6.2. The branching is about
keeping stable things stable and about only adding things that are in a
release-ready state. Just making or missing the br
On Thursday, 4 August 2011, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> decisions on fcl-db are taken. (which would be unfair since atm I'm a
> Delphi/Zeos not FPC/fcl-db user).
Shame on you. :-)
> Though I would work a bit harder for postgres issues, specially the
> transaction and binary parameter stuff. I
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 02:09, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 04 Aug 2011, at 14:51, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
>> It would be very nice if you can notify use a week or two before such
>> a branch. That way we know we need to finish up with what we are doing
>> if we want those features in the next majo
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote / napísal(a):
On 4/8/2011 09:21, LacaK wrote:
Is this "branching" somehow related to preparation of release some
next version of FPC (2.5.x ? or so) ?
I am asking because, there are waiting some bugs/features which I
would be happy see fixed before any major r
Marco van de Voort wrote / napísal(a):
(or you are busy with other task and I must be patient and wait ;-))
I only cherry pick the easy db bugs to get some load of Joost. Typically
stuff where it is fairly clear what needs to be done, and no major design
decisions on fcl-db are taken. (wh
On 05 Aug 2011, at 03:33, Alexander Klenin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 02:09, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> Branching for a major release is most appropriate when trunk is in a settled
>> down/stable state. It's not intended to happen right after a number of major
>> last minute changes have been co
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 19:39, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> So, TAChart will have to carry numlib fork until 2.6.2 ?
>
> It's always possible. FPC releases are not based on "feature X will certainly
> be in it". We tried that (we were not going to do the next major release
> before the cpstrnew branch w
On 05 Aug 2011, at 10:49, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 19:39, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
So, TAChart will have to carry numlib fork until 2.6.2 ?
It's always possible. FPC releases are not based on "feature X will
certainly be in it". We tried that (we were not going to do the
That's why we have snapshots. The main purpose of a release is to have
something that is stable and which doesn't break previously working
code (except in known cases documented at
http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_Trunk ).
Are there published some rules, what breakage is acceptable,
On 05 Aug 2011, at 12:19, LacaK wrote:
That's why we have snapshots. The main purpose of a release is to
have something that is stable and which doesn't break previously
working code (except in known cases documented at http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_Trunk
).
Are there published s
On 5/8/2011 03:05, LacaK wrote:
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote / napísal(a):
On 4/8/2011 09:21, LacaK wrote:
Is this "branching" somehow related to preparation of release some
next version of FPC (2.5.x ? or so) ?
I am asking because, there are waiting some bugs/features which I
would be h
56 matches
Mail list logo
