Problems with ubunutu/debian

[lucamar]

Incidentally, I wonder: what happens if you try to rebuild Lazarus (through lazbuild) after the FPC update?

I can't build Lazarus after the FPC update, see screenshot 1

I meant from the console, using: sudo lazbuild --build-ide=
But it rather looks like the update of fpc is trashing something on your configuration, so it probably won't work either.

I don't have any problems when I first install from deb files.  It isn't till the OS detects the FPC and decides it needs to update it.  Then it breaks.

I don't know if it's your case but this kind of things usually happens because people lean too much on automatism. If you set "update" to "ask me first" or such like it will probably just tell you what it thinks needs updating and let you select whether to update or not and what.

[dfergfla]

The way this distro is setup it puts this update as a "system" update.  So, unless I never ever want to update any part of my system files.  There is no option to exclude just this FPC thing.

[JuhaManninen]

If the devs wish to stop providing complied binaries for .dep, therefore ignoring the most wide spread distros in the world, then that is on them.  I think that would be insane.  I am sure not going to change distros just for Lazarus.

You apparently still misunderstand the cause for your problems. They are not caused by .deb packages provided by Lazarus project. They are caused by .deb packages provided by your Linux distro.
Please explain me why you complain here about packages provided by a Linux distro. Shouldn't you complain in the distro's forum instead?
Or, do you have some master-plan for Lazarus developers hacking into Ubuntu's servers and secretly replacing their broken packages with better ones?

Unfortunately you are not the first person who blames Lazarus developers for Ubuntu's or Mint's poor packages. It is all useless and wastes everybody's time and energy.
We can continue to provide the .deb packages from the download link but only for people who know what they are doing. For everybody else we would recommend other distros or installation methods.
Again, if people answer questions about those problematic .deb installations, they only encourage to maintain them and things get worse.

This is not about a favorite Linux distro. This is more about the evolution of distros in general. There was a time when Yggdrasil was the best distro, then Slackware, Redhat, Debian .... but then better ones came.
Rolling distribution concept is a true innovation and improvement. There is nothing religious about it. They just work better for a desktop system because people typically want a recent version of some favorite SW there. The stability issues have been solved, too. It is quite amazing.

I have used Mint, Xubuntu and some other .deb based distros. Usually I managed to screw their package systems after installing some external packages. Finally my conclusion was the same as many people have already made: avoid .debs.
Thus if feels silly that some people who screwed their Ubuntu's package system then come here to complain and blame Lazarus developers. Shame on you!

[dfergfla]

So, what your saying is that after having used the deb files provided by this website for years I have suddenly gone stupid and don't know how to use them.  What pisses me off is that you go to the distro, they say it's the devs.  You go to the devs and they say its the distro.  In the mean time, I am a user that is stuck in the middle with neither side willing to even look into it.  BTW, this is where I get my install from..

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lazarus/files/Lazarus%20Linux%20amd64%20DEB/Lazarus%201.8.4/

you would think that if a major distro was out there breaking my software with an update.  I would be talking to that disto to resolve the issue.  This is how things work in the real world.  But not in the Linux world.  Here you just blame the other side and hope the user just gives up and goes away. 

[Handoko]

You apparently still misunderstand the cause for your problems. They are not caused by .deb packages provided by Lazarus project. They are caused by .deb packages provided by your Linux distro.

I agree with what @JuhaManninen said.

If I use Synaptic to examine the packages of Lazarus and FPC. They're different from what provided by Ubuntu.

The packages installed using deb files downloaded from SourceForge, are divided into 3 packages: fpc, fpc-src, lazarus-project. But I can see the installation packages provided by Ubuntu are divided into many much smaller packages:

- fp-compiler
- fp-docs
- fp-ide
- fp-units-base
- fp-units-db
- fp-units-fcl
- fp-units-fv
- fp-units-gfx
- fp-units-gtk2
- fp-units-i386:i386
- fp-units-math
- fp-units-multimedia
- fp-units-misc
- fp-units-net
- fp-units-rtl
- fp-utils
- fpc
- fpc-source
- lazarus
- lazarus-doc
- lazarus-ide
- lazarus-ide-gtk2
- lazarus-src
- lcl
- lcl-gtk2
- lcl-nogui
- lcl-gtk5
- lcl-units

Maybe there are advantages to organize the installation files into lots of smaller packages. But this is the cause of the issue. Lazarus (using SourceForge deb file) can't recognize the FPC and FPC-source packages after the update.

you would think that if a major distro was out there breaking my software with an update.

Lazarus is not the only software that stop working after Ubuntu update. I ever had several programs that stop working after Ubuntu upgrade.

The way this distro is setup it puts this update as a "system" update.  So, unless I never ever want to update any part of my system files.  There is no option to exclude just this FPC thing.

Did you read my previous posts?
Use version locking. Problem solved.
You can unlock it anytime you want.

In the mean time, I am a user that is stuck in the middle with neither side willing to even look into it.

Please delete the statement in your post.
Lots of people here were trying to help you. They gave you suggestions and steps what you should do. And at least I have spent hours try to help you. If you're not willing to do what I said, that's fine. I've just tried to reproduce your case, and I managed to solve it using the thing I told you.

[JuhaManninen]

So, what your saying is that after having used the deb files provided by this website for years I have suddenly gone stupid and don't know how to use them.

Earlier you were lucky and it worked. Now you got the .deb package system screwed which is likely to happen with external packages in general.
Then you refuse to follow the advice given to solve the problem.

What pisses me off is that you go to the distro, they say it's the devs.  You go to the devs and they say its the distro.

Maybe it is the devs of the distro.

In the mean time, I am a user that is stuck in the middle with neither side willing to even look into it.

You are not stuck if you follow the clear instructions people have given you. Please!

you would think that if a major distro was out there breaking my software with an update.  I would be talking to that disto to resolve the issue.  This is how things work in the real world.  But not in the Linux world.  Here you just blame the other side and hope the user just gives up and goes away.

The Debian package system is inherently fragile and can break when you bring anything outside the official repo updates. This is the experience of myself and of many others. The rule "avoid .debs" is not a joke, it is based on experience.
It can break even if the packages are "valid", not broken. Ubuntu used to have a defunct Lazarus package but that is another issue.
Also please remember that a certain .deb package cannot work in every Debian related distro because distros and distro versions have different libraries and library versions. A generic .dep package is impossible by definition.

I have done lots of distro hopping and broken my .dep package systems. Yes. The external packages were not Lazarus, I always got it from SVN. Still, I understood the problem comes from the fragile package system instead of the SW's developers. I did not go to blame them!
Now you have 2 choices: follow the advice given or then go away.
You have at least these advice now:

1. Use Manjaro. This is not about promoting my favorite distro but to promote the big evolutionary step: rolling distributions. If your problems are so bad that you reinstall your whole OS and then hang around here for days complaining, it is worth a try.

2. Get Lazarus from SVN. Your system has a functional FPC I guess, either 3.0.2 or 3.0.4.
Then in your home dir:

Code: [Select]

svn co https://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/branches/fixes_1_8/ lazarus_1_8
cd lazarus_1_8
makeIf you refuse to do that, please at least tell us why. As an extra benefit you would get always the latest bug fixes by running "svn up".

3. Use version locking of the Debian package system as Handoko told. I personally don't like this option because the fragile system will break later anyway for some other reason.

IMO giving instructions to solve a .deb package system problem is counter-productive in most cases.
It encourages people to use it while they should use some easier and less error-prone way to install Lazarus.
It is like asking people to bang their heads again and again. What is the benefit of that?
Handoko and others, in future please remind people that .debs are only for experts. If in doubt, do not encourage using them.
This all would be OK if it happened once or twice, but no, it is happening constantly. Again and again and again...

[marcov]

So, what your saying is that after having used the deb files provided by this website for years I have suddenly gone stupid and don't know how to use them.  What pisses me off is that you go to the distro, they say it's the devs.  You go to the devs and they say its the distro.

Distros package software and adapt them to whatever changes (or version changes) they made in their distro. That's what they DO, that is what a distro fundamentally IS.

However then there is a matter of support, and not one person has a complete view of a distro + a given piece of sofware, so that is fragmented by nature.

And then come two fundamental problems: One is debian (and derivatives) specific, namely that they have a large amount of packaging rules and generally modify the way the packages are distributed heavily.

Second is Linux in general, that there is no mid to long time way for a package to keep working without modifications. This means that even if you manage to drain the first swamp, it is only for a relatively short time before something changes and you have to start over.

So the problem is a bit that the distros are responsible but incapable, and the devs prefer to avoid getting sucked into what is not their job in the first place.

Free Pascal recommends the .tar distribution for Debian, even though there are occasionally (but not always!) .debs.

P.s. and it is idiotic that even after 25 years of linux there are still differing package formats per distro and worse, the packages are still depending on major version too. It only got worse, back then at least there were less distributions.

[valdir.marcos]

So, what your saying is that after having used the deb files provided by this website for years I have suddenly gone stupid and don't know how to use them.  What pisses me off is that you go to the distro, they say it's the devs.  You go to the devs and they say its the distro.

Distros package software and adapt them to whatever changes (or version changes) they made in their distro. That's what they DO, that is what a distro fundamentally IS.

However then there is a matter of support, and not one person has a complete view of a distro + a given piece of sofware, so that is fragmented by nature.

And then come two fundamental problems: One is debian (and derivatives) specific, namely that they have a large amount of packaging rules and generally modify the way the packages are distributed heavily.

Second is Linux in general, that there is no mid to long time way for a package to keep working without modifications. This means that even if you manage to drain the first swamp, it is only for a relatively short time before something changes and you have to start over.

So the problem is a bit that the distros are responsible but incapable, and the devs prefer to avoid getting sucked into what is not their job in the first place.

Free Pascal recommends the .tar distribution for Debian, even though there are occasionally (but not always!) .debs.

P.s. and it is idiotic that even after 25 years of linux there are still differing package formats per distro and worse, the packages are still depending on major version too. It only got worse, back then at least there were less distributions.

This is changing, slowly, but changing.
Both FHS and app distribution (packaging) have similiar problems: how to equalize behavior in all Linux distributions?


"The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) defines the directory structure and directory contents in Linux distributions. It is maintained by the Linux Foundation. The latest version is 3.0, released on 3 June 2015."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard


"There was a time when you typed sudo apt-get install [package] (or yum, pacman, dnf, etc.) in your terminal, then, a list of dependencies of that package were shown and you were prompted if the installation should proceed.
But now, and innovative revolution has risen: cross-distribution applications. This time, I will make a comparison of three major formats: AppImage, Flatpak and Snaps."

The future of app distribution in Linux: a comparison between AppImage, Snappy and Flatpak.
https://medium.com/nitrux/cross-distro-linux-applications-1169c3077136

[marcov]

P.s. and it is idiotic that even after 25 years of linux there are still differing package formats per distro and worse, the packages are still depending on major version too. It only got worse, back then at least there were less distributions.

This is changing, slowly, but changing.
Both FHS and app distribution (packaging) have similiar problems: how to equalize behavior in all Linux distributions?

FHS is only a very minor aspect (since that wouldn't actually that much of a problem between versions of the same distro).   Library versioning matrix is the main one. Both binary, and changing packaging decisions.

It might solve a handful of issues, but I don't expect it to be even noticable.

"There was a time when you typed sudo apt-get install [package] (or yum, pacman, dnf, etc.) in your terminal, then, a list of dependencies of that package were shown and you were prompted if the installation should proceed.
But now, and innovative revolution has risen: cross-distribution applications. This time, I will make a comparison of three major formats: AppImage, Flatpak and Snaps."

And they are all centered on very isolated apps like mobile apps are. Something which is pretty useless for a development system. Moreover, if I run Lazarus+FPC in such container, will the generated app also need the container's runtime (as opposed as the distro one?)

Again a solution for rare cases, and the longevity (as opposed to cross install or cross distro) has still to be determined (and my hopes are not very high)

Since there are so many little changes that cause the breakage and the problems, I don't expect new tech to really change anything, except when it flat out guarantees package to remain working for xxx years. (e.g. because they have a compatibility subsystem for it, like FreeBSD's compat, or Linux IBCS, long,long ago)

[dfergfla]

So, what your saying is that after having used the deb files provided by this website for years I have suddenly gone stupid and don't know how to use them.

Earlier you were lucky and it worked. Now you got the .deb package system screwed which is likely to happen with external packages in general.
Then you refuse to follow the advice given to solve the problem.

I am exhausted  saying the same thing over and over, I am positive that I am using perfectly acceptable English.  It isn't the debs.  I have always used the debs provided by this site to install with.  It has always worked and still does.  It is after it is installed.  At that time the package manager/update thing in the OS sees that a version of FPC is installed.  When it sees that it does it's own thing, and "updates" it on its own.  That is what breaks it.  If it would just leave my install alone it would be fine.  But, I can't prevent it from installing the update, it doesn't give me a choice.  I tried the synaptic thing, but it just didn't work for me.

So as any normal QA Analyst I tried to investigate.  I cleaned out the install and attempted to use the one in the repo "apt-get install lazarus1.8" just to see if that would work.  It will install and run, but anytime you try to recompile for anything, like adding a component it fails.  I went to the OS message boards and explained the problem and asked how to stop that particular update in their system.  That was 4 days ago, over 100 people have read the post.... not a single answer of any kind.  It is just being ignored.

Somehow an update to FPC is out there in the Ubuntu/Debian repo (Yes it happens on Debian also, not just Ubuntu) that is causing this.  I do not know how it got put out there into the repo, but it causing problems and everyone just wants to point fingers at the other and do nothing to resolve it.