Forum > Windows (32/64)
Does the windows installer provided on SF set a PATH to fpc.exe?
PascalDragon:
--- Quote from: Gustavo 'Gus' Carreno on June 02, 2022, 07:19:56 pm ---
--- Quote from: PascalDragon on June 01, 2022, 11:48:21 am ---Just in case you should need it, I've attached a project that lists all detected FPC and Lazarus installations (if they were done with the installers):
--- End quote ---
THIS IS FRIGGIN AWESOME !!!
--- End quote ---
I thought that you might like that :P
--- Quote from: Gustavo 'Gus' Carreno on June 02, 2022, 07:19:56 pm ---Now... Would you be willing to put this in a GitHub/GitLab repo so I can bombard you with issues and suggestions on how we can have this tool available for GitHub actions and/or GitLab whatchyamacallit CD?
--- End quote ---
If I should find the time I'll try to do so...
--- Quote from: J-G on June 02, 2022, 08:29:26 pm ---Since I now have Laz 1.6 with FPC 3.0.0 as well as Laz 2.2.0 with FPC 3.2.2 and had some difficulty with the secondary instalation, I downloaded this program to see whether I had anything 'extranious' lurking.
I had to add a [Read(Ch)] to see the result of course but was somewhat surprised to find that it didn't report that I had FPC 3.2.2 installed.
ScreenGrab of the output attached in case this is of interest.
--- End quote ---
Would you please check whether there is an entry in one of the registry keys mentioned in the source that would match your missing installation? Cause it's a bit of a heuristic that's going on there and it might not be accurate enough... And are you on Windows 32- or 64-bit? If the later are you compiling as 32- or 64-bit?
J-G:
--- Quote from: PascalDragon on June 07, 2022, 02:08:53 pm ---Would you please check whether there is an entry in one of the registry keys mentioned in the source that would match your missing installation? Cause it's a bit of a heuristic that's going on there and it might not be accurate enough... And are you on Windows 32- or 64-bit? If the later are you compiling as 32- or 64-bit?
--- End quote ---
I'm 100% sure as to what you are asking there. I've just used RegEdit and can see an entry [wow6432Node] but don't see any entry under that for FPC or Lazarus.
My system is 64 bit and I normally compile for 32bit but for your program I made no changes to the [Options] -- ie. the Target platform entries are all [Default].
[EDIT]
After a little more research, I've found a reference to 'Lazarus.AssocFile.lfm' (plus .inc, .lpi etc.) under [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT] and these all point to the Laz 1.6 installation. There is also an entry for FPCPASFile etc. As suggested, when I installed Laz 2.2 as a 'secondary install', I purposly told it to NOT associate files so am wondering if that may be the reason for your program not to find FPC3.2.2 %)
Clutching a straws to some extent but the observation may give you a pointer.
Gustavo 'Gus' Carreno:
Hey PascalDragon,
--- Quote from: PascalDragon on June 07, 2022, 02:08:53 pm ---I thought that you might like that :P
--- End quote ---
I do indeed, and again, so many thanks for this kewl tool :)
--- Quote from: PascalDragon on June 07, 2022, 02:08:53 pm ---If I should find the time I'll try to do so...
--- End quote ---
I couldn't ask any more of you, so please do not re-arrange your schedule in any way just to accommodate a humble request of mine.
Earning the daily bread ALWAYS takes precedence !!
That and family :P
Cheers,
Gus
PascalDragon:
--- Quote from: J-G on June 07, 2022, 03:01:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: PascalDragon on June 07, 2022, 02:08:53 pm ---Would you please check whether there is an entry in one of the registry keys mentioned in the source that would match your missing installation? Cause it's a bit of a heuristic that's going on there and it might not be accurate enough... And are you on Windows 32- or 64-bit? If the later are you compiling as 32- or 64-bit?
--- End quote ---
I'm 100% sure as to what you are asking there. I've just used RegEdit and can see an entry [wow6432Node] but don't see any entry under that for FPC or Lazarus.
--- End quote ---
I had said that you should look in the registry keys I had mentioned in the source, cause I couldn't look it up right now, so here is the full keys you need to look at:
* HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
* HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\WoW6432Node\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
This is where the utility finds the installations and where Windows also retrieves them from for display in the Uninstall control pane. The installations themselves are subkeys and values like Publisher of these are the ones looked at.
--- Quote from: J-G on June 07, 2022, 03:01:38 pm ---My system is 64 bit and I normally compile for 32bit but for your program I made no changes to the [Options] -- ie. the Target platform entries are all [Default].
--- End quote ---
That is not enough information, cause I don't know what the Default setting of your Lazarus is as this doesn't depend on your host system but on whether you have installed the 64- or 32-bit version of Lazarus.
--- Quote from: J-G on June 07, 2022, 03:01:38 pm ---[EDIT]
After a little more research, I've found a reference to 'Lazarus.AssocFile.lfm' (plus .inc, .lpi etc.) under [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT] and these all point to the Laz 1.6 installation. There is also an entry for FPCPASFile etc. As suggested, when I installed Laz 2.2 as a 'secondary install', I purposly told it to NOT associate files so am wondering if that may be the reason for your program not to find FPC3.2.2 %)
--- End quote ---
The file associations are not relevant for this, though this could indeed be used to find out whether there are remnants of an installation (but that's not the purpose of my tool).
J-G:
--- Quote from: PascalDragon on June 08, 2022, 08:56:45 am ---I had said that you should look in the registry keys I had mentioned in the source, cause I couldn't look it up right now, so here is the full keys you need to look at:
--- End quote ---
Ah - appologies PascalDragon - I ought to have been able to fathom that :-[
I have now looked properly and find the reference to Lazarus_is1 & Lazarus_sec_9886....... under the first 'base' but only FreePascal_is1 under the second ie. no reference to FPC 3.2.2
--- Quote from: PascalDragon ---
--- Quote from: J-G on June 07, 2022, 03:01:38 pm ---My system is 64 bit and I normally compile for 32bit but for your program I made no changes to the [Options] -- ie. the Target platform entries are all [Default].
--- End quote ---
That is not enough information, cause I don't know what the Default setting of your Lazarus is as this doesn't depend on your host system but on whether you have installed the 64- or 32-bit version of Lazarus.
--- End quote ---
Again appologies - I meant my Lazarus system is a 64bit installation - and can now see that you might be misled into thinking that I meant my PC System was 64bit.
I can fully understand that your utility can only report what it finds in the Registry and only responded in the hope that my system not reporting the FPC3.2.2 installation would point you to something that you had over-looked and might then be able to address.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page