Lazarus Release Candidate 3 of 1.8

[Fred vS]

@ Juha. > We cannot change Ubuntu or Mint repositories as you should know.

I know this and it is why I do not understand why you choose to give  only DEB package (highly linked with update from Ubuntu/Mint).
It would not be problems if there was no Lazarus package in the Ubuntu/Mint repository.

But there are and always outdated --> this make conflict.

And of course it is possible to use source and built all Lazarus.  But I think to all the no-guru people.

By the way, would it be so difficult that one of the Lazarus team compress his /Lazarus/ folder and gives it for release ?

Fre;D

[Martin_fr]

I don't know all the details about the various linux installers.

But afaik, the point is that they install dependencies (like various ...-dev packages).

So if you never had Lazarus installed on / or a new setup linux system, then simply copying someone else's folder will not work. You will get errors when you try to work with it.

The same applies to building from source.

I do not know if a script could easily solve this. But it would have - on each system - to successfully detect the exact syntax for installing each dependency.

I always thought that was why dep and rpm exist.

-----------------
From what I read in this thread:
- The problem is not deb/rpm itself, but that they (there content) conflicts.

So what exactly conflicts?

The name? The install directory?

I don't build those installers, so I don't know if any of this here will end up to change them.
But hypothetically would it help if name and target dir would be changed?

Btw does the installer that executes the deb file has option to specify overrides?

[RayoGlauco]

I use Linux Mint and I know the Lazarus package on this repository is always outdated. So, I download the last version of .deb Lazarus package from http://lazarus-ide.org/
I think it is not so annoying or difficult.

[Thaddy]

And of course it is possible to use source and built all Lazarus.  But I think to all the no-guru people.

By the way, would it be so difficult that one of the Lazarus team compress his /Lazarus/ folder and gives it for release ?

Fre;D

That's nonsense
It is a no brainer to build from source. Learn once, works everywhere...

[Handoko]

Do you have plan to give a zipped version of Lazarus for Linux (not a DEB file, a zip like fpc does) ?
This because using DEB file gives lot of problem with Linux Ubuntu/Mint.

What is the problem of using Lazarus deb file on Ubuntu? Can you provide more info or screenshots?

I've been using Lazarus using deb file installation on Ubuntu Mate but never have any serious problem. I admit sometimes it said something conflicting but simply ignoring that message then everything will work correctly.

[m.abudrais]

when you try to install any software after lazarus
you get errors like this:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. Unmet dependencies. Try ‘apt-get -f install’ with no packages (or specify a solution)

and

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. fp-units-fcl : Depends: fp-units-fcl-3.0.0 (= 3.0.0+dfsg-2) but it is not going to be installed
2. thi

that was ubuntu 16 ,(in virtual box)
in ubuntu 17 i have no problem.

[JuhaManninen]

that was ubuntu 16 ,(in virtual box)
in ubuntu 17 i have no problem.

Indeed the problems depend on OS version. This makes the task for Lazarus team quite difficult. There should be installation packages for many distros and even many versions of them.
Mattias has built the .deb and .rpm packages so far. I believe he has also many other things to do.
If many different installation packages are really needed, somebody must volunteer to build and deliver them. Anybody?

A valid solution for people struggling with those packages is to switch to a rolling distro.
Their package systems are more advanced than DEB or RPM systems. Things have advanced in the last 15+ years ...
For example when FPC 3.0.4 will be released, my Manjaro will have it in a week or 2 without any effort from my side. The same will happen with the coming Lazarus 1.8.
Recommended.

[Handoko]

when you try to install any software after lazarus
you get errors like this:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. Unmet dependencies. Try ‘apt-get -f install’ with no packages (or specify a solution)

and

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. fp-units-fcl : Depends: fp-units-fcl-3.0.0 (= 3.0.0+dfsg-2) but it is not going to be installed
2. thi

that was ubuntu 16 ,(in virtual box)
in ubuntu 17 i have no problem.

Please provide more information. Did you install it using Ubuntu Software Center or deb files provided by Lazarus team?

You should not use Ubuntu Software Center, it is a very bad tool. Alternatively you can try Synaptic Package Manager. Here is how I install Lazarus on Ubuntu Mate:

1. Remove all of them (Lazarus, FPC, FPC sources)
2. Retart you computer. Yes, do it. It ever caused me headache.
3. Download the 3 deb files.
4. Install fpc_3.0.2-170225_amd64.deb
5. Install fpc-src_3.0.2-170225_amd64.deb
6. Install lazarus-project_1.6.4-0_amd64.deb
7. Use Synaptic Package Manager to lock version of the installed things

Notes:
- The file names in step #4, #5, #6 may be different.
- If you get version conflict warning, ignore it and nothing bad will happen
- Ubuntu will ask you to use their version, don't use theirs.
- Your installation will be replace with Ubuntu's version when updating software, so you need to do step #7

[Fred vS]

> That's nonsense

No, God Thaddy Who Knows All Better Than Others And That Criticize Code Without To Read It, it has sense.  fpc does it (+ give a install-script), CT does it (and it works perfectly), MSEgui-ide does it, ideU does it.

Fre;D

[ecrypt]

when you try to install any software after lazarus
you get errors like this:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. [b]Unmet dependencies[/b]. Try ‘apt-get -f install’ with no packages (or specify a solution)

and

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. fp-units-fcl : Depends: fp-units-fcl-3.0.0 (= 3.0.0+dfsg-2) but it is not going to be installed
2. thi

that was ubuntu 16 ,(in virtual box)
in ubuntu 17 i have no problem.

That is an error, because dependencies not completed install

[Fred vS]

> Can you provide more info or screenshots?

And, sorry, but fpc.cfg is there in /etc/.

Fre;D

[Fred vS]

That's nonsense
It is a no brainer to build from source. Learn once, works everywhere...

For me, a release 1.8 that has is called 1.6.4 (in deb package)  has no sense.
Also, IMHO, a release is a compiled version of a program, not source that must be compiled.

And for you Thaddy:

Read once before to comment everywhere...

Fre;D

[JuhaManninen]

Also, IMHO, a release is a compiled version of a program, not source that must be compiled.

Yes, true, but the fact remains that Lazarus is easier to build from sources than eg. FPC.
It does not really require installation, just start it from its directory from console or by a shortcut.
So, building from sources is a good workaround for this problem.

In a perfect world we would have installation packages for every OS and all their versions, but we don't until somebody builds and maintans them.
Maybe you could help with the packages?

That is an error, because dependencies not completed install

No, I think it is related to the distro (Ubuntu, Mint) version. I remember similar reports earlier. I don't know details of what cause it.
Yes, it is a problem but not a big one because we have easy workarounds and solutions.
My personal favorite solution is to use a rolling Linux distro.

[Handoko]

> Can you provide more info or screenshots?

And, sorry, but fpc.cfg is there in /etc/.

Fre;D

Maybe you can try to completely remove the leftovers of the previous installation before you install/update the newer version:

01. Uninstall lazarus, fpc, fpc-src
02. Delete ~/.lazarus, except: editoroptions, environmentoptions
03. Delete /etc/fp.*
04. Delete /usr/share/fpcsrc
05. Delete /usr/lib/fpc
06. Delete /usr/bin/ppc*

The steps above tested on Ubuntu Mate, so far it never fails me. On the step #2 I keep editoroptions and environmentoptions because I want to keep the settings I have made on my IDE.

[jc99]

Also, IMHO, a release is a compiled version of a program, not source that must be compiled.

And for you Thaddy:

Read once before to comment everywhere...

Fre;D

I'am a little in between, for me it's still a release, if the source is compiled on installation. But after that, it has to be usable, meaning after installaton there have to be binaries, ready to use.
JEDI used to do something like that in their installation.