Lazarus

Announcements => Lazarus => Topic started by: Martin_fr on June 22, 2020, 04:14:45 pm

Title: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 22, 2020, 04:14:45 pm

The Lazarus team has scheduled

      Lazarus 2.0.10
      for July 2020 (estimated 4th to 11th)

      This release will be built with FPC 3.2.0.

Here is the list of fixes for Lazarus 2.0.10 (since 2.0.0):
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Lazarus_2.0_fixes_branch


We would invite everyone to provide their feedback to help us improve
this upcoming release. Please let us know in particular:
- Any bug-fixes already made to trunk, that you believe should still be
  merged to the fixes branch (fixes that are not listed on the above wiki page)
- Any regressions that happened in fixes branch since the release of 2.0
- Other urgent (e.g. crashes/data-loss/...) matters, you believe we should know before the release.

Please attempt to provide your feedback by: 30th June 2020


More info on our release process can be found at (work in progress):
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_release_engineering

Information about the previous release:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_2.0.0_release_notes
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3.0.4
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3.2.0

The intended minimum requirements for the release will be:

Windows:
   2k(*), XP(*), Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10, 32 or 64bit.

FreeBSD/Linux:
   gtk 2.8 for gtk2, qt4.5 for qt, qt5.6 for qt5, 32 or 64bit.

macOS:
   10.5 to 10.12; Carbon (32bit), Cocoa (64bit, beta), qt and qt5
   (32 or 64bit).


(*) requires install from sources

Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 22, 2020, 04:14:54 pm
For those who wonder why it is 2.0.10 and not 2.2.
We choose to make a 2.0.10 + 3.2.0 release, as this is the faster option. This release can be scheduled for early July.

A Lazarus 2.2 release would take more time to prepare. A new 2.2 fixes branch will probably need some month to stabilize, once it has been branched. That would push a release further back. A decision on 2.2 will be made in due course. More information will be posted once available.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: ASerge on June 22, 2020, 04:39:08 pm
- Any bug-fixes already made to trunk, that you believe should still be
  merged to the fixes branch (fixes that are not listed on the above wiki page)
35467 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35467) - TWindowProcHelper.CalcClipRgn micropatch.
34759 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34759) - For Windows there is a inconsistency in the use of wsFullScreen for WindowState.
35465 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35465) - The LCLBoundsToWin32Bounds function has two unused parameters: Width and Height.
35466 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35466) - TWin32WSCustomPage.DestroyHandle micropatch.
35694 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35694) - Micropatch of LazMethodList unit.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: lucamar on June 22, 2020, 04:43:51 pm
Not that my opinion matters much but ...

I know we're always wanting the "fast track" release cycle but in this particular case (lots of changes, ain't it?) I'd wait until at least next year (and not very early, at that) for a 2.2.0 release.

So this interim 2.0.10 sounds like really good news, allowing us to really check a Lazarus with FPC 3.2 without having to worry too much about checking also a brand new major version of Lazarus  ;D

Frankly, I'd allow time for 2.0.10 until August or even September, to have a really fully stable last 2.0 release upon which to fall back in case of later problems.

Anyway, lotsa' thanks to all devs for their efforts. :)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 22, 2020, 05:02:39 pm
So this interim 2.0.10 sounds like really good news, allowing us to really check a Lazarus with FPC 3.2 without having to worry too much about checking also a brand new major version of Lazarus  ;D

Frankly, I'd allow time for 2.0.10 until August or even September, to have a really fully stable last 2.0 release upon which to fall back in case of later problems.

Well there have always been a few people already testing Lazarus with the fpc fixes branch. So it is not like it is all new.

We even had some snapshots of the last 2.0.8 release with fpc fixes: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lazarus-snapshots/files/
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Zoran on June 22, 2020, 05:12:44 pm
Not that my opinion matters much but ...

...

Please note that FPC 3.2 is not quite some new strange territory for Lazarus.
Although Lazarus is always officially released with released FPC version, Lazarus (both trunk and 2.0 fixes) has been tested and used with fpc 3.2. since it was branched (almost two years ago) (https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,42265) and especially since release candidate came out couple of months ago (https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,49110).
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: lucamar on June 22, 2020, 05:22:51 pm
Well there have always been a few people already testing Lazarus with the fpc fixes branch. So it is not like it is all new.

Please note that FPC 3.2 is not quite some new strange territory for Lazarus.

Yes, I know, even "played" a little with those "previews". But an "official" release is something a little diffferent, as both of you know ;)

Remember that we are not "aficionados" but program in Pascal for a (rather bare :D) living and have a pletora of prettty medium to big business applications.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: marcov on June 22, 2020, 05:24:15 pm
Will 2.0.10 still support 3.0.4 ?

Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 22, 2020, 06:23:50 pm
Will 2.0.10 still support 3.0.4 ?
It should.
Lazarus should always support at least one version back.
So the question would be for 3.0.2
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: lelebass on June 22, 2020, 07:35:57 pm
- Any bug-fixes already made to trunk, that you believe should still be
  merged to the fixes branch (fixes that are not listed on the above wiki page)

r63297 - https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=37127

Daniele
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Ullman on June 23, 2020, 09:59:10 am
Hi there,
so is the mentioned release a beta with a beta undercarriage?
I have not seen any proclamation of fpc 3.2 on its homepage so far.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: trev on June 23, 2020, 10:01:29 am
Hi there,
so is the mentioned release a beta with a beta undercarriage?
I have not seen any proclamation of fpc 3.2 on its homepage so far.

From the Free Pascal website homepage:

Quote
Latest News

June 19th, 2020

    FPC version 3.2.0 has been released!
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Ullman on June 23, 2020, 10:10:01 am
Your right - updating the browser cache sometimes help  :)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: dbannon on June 23, 2020, 10:21:02 am
....
Well there have always been a few people already testing Lazarus with the fpc fixes branch. So it is not like it is all new.

I have been building tomboy-ng with FPC320 beta and Lazarus Trunk for last two releases.  Looks good ....

Davo
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: marcov on June 23, 2020, 10:23:24 am
Will 2.0.10 still support 3.0.4 ?
It should.
Lazarus should always support at least one version back.
So the question would be for 3.0.2

Oh. Big motivation to start working on 3.2.2 :-)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: JuhaManninen on June 23, 2020, 10:23:31 am
35467 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35467) - TWindowProcHelper.CalcClipRgn micropatch.
Can be considered a bug fix. There was an uninitialized variable. Added to the list for merging.

Quote
34759 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=34759) - For Windows there is a inconsistency in the use of wsFullScreen for WindowState.
This is a bug fix, too, although there were conflicting opinions. Nobody has complained during a long test period so I guess it is safe to merge. Added to the list.

Quote
35465 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35465) - The LCLBoundsToWin32Bounds function has two unused parameters: Width and Height.
35466 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35466) - TWin32WSCustomPage.DestroyHandle micropatch.
35694 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35694) - Micropatch of LazMethodList unit.
These are not bug fixes. The rule is clear and simple: a bug fix release gets only bug fixes.
Why would you want to merge them? They will be in the major 2.2. release automatically.
I remember having the exact same discussion with you earlier BTW.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: JuhaManninen on June 23, 2020, 11:32:13 am
Thanks for Mattias and Martin for building this extra bug fix release in addition to the other releases.
Now all release builds depend very much on their efforts.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: ASerge on June 23, 2020, 02:03:52 pm
Can be considered a bug fix. There was an uninitialized variable. Added to the list for merging.
...
This is a bug fix, too, although there were conflicting opinions. Nobody has complained during a long test period so I guess it is safe to merge. Added to the list.
...
I remember having the exact same discussion with you earlier BTW.
Thank you.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 23, 2020, 11:32:35 pm
Moved part of the discussion: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,50315.0.html
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Pascal on June 24, 2020, 08:33:13 am
Hello Martin,

just checked my last contributions. The following ones are not merged to fixes_2_0:

Revision: 63181
Author: mattias
Date: Montag, 18. Mai 2020 12:29:22
Message:
codetools: fixed extract generic type param names, issue 37081, from Pascal Riekenberg
----
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/pascalreadertool.pas
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/tests/testcodecompletion.pas

Revision: 63160
Author: mattias
Date: Freitag, 15. Mai 2020 11:37:49
Message:
codetools: var completion of for-var-in-genericarray, from Pascal Riekenberg, issue 37076
----
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/finddeclarationtool.pas
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/tests/moduletests/fdt_generics_guesstype.pas

Revision: 63159
Author: mattias
Date: Freitag, 15. Mai 2020 10:37:03
Message:
codetools: fixed semicolon after specialize on class completion, from Pascal Riekenberg
----
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/tests/testcodecompletion.pas
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/pascalreadertool.pas

Revision: 63149
Author: mattias
Date: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2020 10:18:22
Message:
codetools: test parsing nested generic inline expression, from Pascal Riekenberg
----
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/tests/testcodecompletion.pas

Revision: 63148
Author: mattias
Date: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2020 10:17:17
Message:
codetools: extract generic type reference, from Pascal Riekenberg
----
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/pascalparsertool.pas

Revision: 63136
Author: mattias
Date: Dienstag, 12. Mai 2020 18:47:24
Message:
codetools: code completion for "FOR var IN" with generic class, from Pascal Riekenberg
----
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/finddeclarationtool.pas
Added : /trunk/components/codetools/tests/moduletests/fdt_generics_guesstype.pas
Modified : /trunk/components/codetools/tests/testfinddeclaration.pas

Revision: 62514
Author: michael
Date: Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2020 18:43:46
Message:
* Fix from Pascal Riekenberg to fix rendering background with clNone (bug ID 36533)
----
Modified : /trunk/components/fpreport/fpreportlclexport.pas

Revision: 61295
Author: juha
Date: Montag, 27. Mai 2019 11:40:00
Message:
LCL-Win32: Fix variable type in GetControlText. Issue #35637, patch from Pascal Riekenberg.
----
Modified : /trunk/lcl/interfaces/win32/win32proc.pp

Revision: 60832
Author: juha
Date: Donnerstag, 4. April 2019 19:26:50
Message:
IDE: Move function GetFPCVer to IDEProcs. Issue #35310, patch from Pascal Riekenberg.
----
Modified : /trunk/ide/ideprocs.pp
Modified : /trunk/ide/initialsetupdlgs.pas

This is a fix 60807 which is not in fixes_2_0

Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: JuhaManninen on June 25, 2020, 10:51:30 am
Revision: 61295
Author: juha
Date: Montag, 27. Mai 2019 11:40:00
Message:
LCL-Win32: Fix variable type in GetControlText. Issue #35637, patch from Pascal Riekenberg.
----
Modified : /trunk/lcl/interfaces/win32/win32proc.pp
I added r61295 to the list for merging. It is more than a year old. Forgotten earlier somehow.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 25, 2020, 02:50:59 pm
Moved off topic part to: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,50340.0.html
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: bobihot on June 26, 2020, 12:45:52 am
Thanks.
If not a secret, to give link to 2.0.10 trunk+3.20, because where  I have is not valid?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 26, 2020, 12:54:10 am
Thanks.
If not a secret, to give link to 2.0.10 trunk+3.20, because where  I have is not valid?

Lazarus 2.0.10  does not yet exist. This conversation is about preparing 2.0.10.
2.0.10  will be made in the next 14 days.

Trunk is different from 2.0.10. Trunk is from svn. You would need to build yourself.

FPC 3.2
You can download: See menu on the left: FreePascal > Download  -- But that is without Lazarus

With Lazarus will be in 14 days.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: davilajunior on June 26, 2020, 05:08:58 pm
Friends, will there be any changes or improvements in the debugger?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 26, 2020, 05:49:52 pm
Friends, will there be any changes or improvements in the debugger?
Not in 2.0.10.

Well I think, FPC 3.2 has some fixes to dwarf debug info. But in most cases you will not note that. (i.e array length do not work, when cross compiling between 32 and 64 bit).




But after that the next release (no date set yet, sorry) will hopefully be Lazarus 2.2.
And that has a few changes. (They can be used in Lazarus trunk, already).
The list can be found here: https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_2.2.0_release_notes#IDE_Changes
And there is an overview here: https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Debugger_Status

It will contain one of the long-standing requests: "Run to cursor" (in addition to the current "Step to cursor").  (Windows/Linux)
If you are looking for "method calling": I.e. StringList.GetText => that is not yet in. But its getting further up on my personal todo list.

If you have any particular problems, please report them in a separate thread.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: davilajunior on June 26, 2020, 06:07:28 pm

Thank you very much for the information. Congratulations on your work, it's a great tool!
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: winni on June 27, 2020, 12:37:44 am

The Lazarus team has scheduled

      Lazarus 2.0.10
      for July 2020 (estimated 4th to 11th)


Hi!

What about the 19th of June:

Blaise Pascal, born on June 19, 1623, in Clermont-Ferrand, France, ....

And the language Pascal must have 50th birthday  in 2020.
Does anybody know the exact date?

Winni

Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: dbannon on June 27, 2020, 01:36:59 am
What about the 19th of June:

Could be a bit of a rush to make 19th June.

And the language Pascal must have 50th birthday  in 2020. Does anybody know the exact date?

He was very much the academic, so driven by publications. So, the date his first paper on the subject was published perhaps ?  Or the first paper to use the term 'pascal' ?

more research is indicated ....

EDIT : "The programming language pascal" -  Acta Informatica 1, 35–63 (1971). Received30 October 1970,  Issue Date March 1971

A programming language called Pascal is described which was developed on the basis of Algol 60........

So, 30 October was the date his submission was received by the Journal, it might be better defined than the jurnal's publication date .

Davo
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: wittbo on June 27, 2020, 04:16:22 pm

The intended minimum requirements for the release will be:
...
macOS:
   10.5 to 10.12; Carbon (32bit), Cocoa (64bit, beta), qt and qt5
   (32 or 64bit).
I'm a little confused about that statement. Does it mean, that Lazarus 2.0.10 will only run on macOS 10.5 to 10.12? Or is 10.12 the minimum requirement and Lazarus 2.0.10 will run on 10.12 and higher up to Catalina (10.15)?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: SlackerNReckless on June 27, 2020, 05:19:22 pm
Nice!  8)

As you can see, FreePascal team released a new Win16 target in their 3.2.0 release. You could release a certain Lazarus for Win16. Win 3.x compilation. Like Borland Delphi 1.0 or Borland/Turbo Pascal for Windows.

But sadly you dropped even Win9x (former Win32 target). I know it's because the maintainer didn't want to continue. At least it was what I read in some Wiki pages and some forum posts here a long time ago.

I'm not complaining. Okay? And honestly I don't want do discuss about, I'm just commenting about.  ::)

With Borland Delphi 7.0, the latest version with the classic GUI capable of generate Win32 executables, 8.0 is .NET), is possible to develop apps for Win9x (including first Win95 version) and they even work in WinNT 3.51 (with latest SP5) and some DLL updates found at BearWindows site (google for). You need to install Delphi 7.0 at least in Win98 (SE if possible), but the generated executable will work in NT 3.51.

It's not possible to install even Delphi 2.0 (first Win32 version) in Windows NT 3.51. The IDE and even the "System" unit don't work. And even the forms creation. Some functions simply don't exist in the API. Only Win95 and more recent Windows versions.

But using Delphi 1.0 you can install it and you can use Call32NT (an way to call 32bit DLL functions in Win16 apps, Google for) in Delphi 1.0. The executable will be a NE (New Executable) like every Win16/Win3.x executable but it can call the 32bit functions of NT 3.5x API.

Anyway... just some thoughts about. Not asking or anything. See ya! ;)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: PascalDragon on June 27, 2020, 05:29:13 pm

The intended minimum requirements for the release will be:
...
macOS:
   10.5 to 10.12; Carbon (32bit), Cocoa (64bit, beta), qt and qt5
   (32 or 64bit).
I'm a little confused about that statement. Does it mean, that Lazarus 2.0.10 will only run on macOS 10.5 to 10.12? Or is 10.12 the minimum requirement and Lazarus 2.0.10 will run on 10.12 and higher up to Catalina (10.15)?

It's probably simply that this part of the ReadMe wasn't updated for quite some time... ;D
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: marcov on June 27, 2020, 05:54:17 pm
Nice!  8)

As you can see, FreePascal team released a new Win16 target in their 3.2.0 release. You could release a certain Lazarus for Win16. Win 3.x compilation. Like Borland Delphi 1.0 or Borland/Turbo Pascal for Windows.

Or you could do it! FPC and Lazarus are community efforts.

Quote
But sadly you dropped even Win9x (former Win32 target). I know it's because the maintainer didn't want to continue. At least it was what I read in some Wiki pages and some forum posts here a long time ago.

There never was a dedicated win9x maintainer. The general Windows maintainers kept it running for 10 years after Windows XP mostly took over, but many of them had cleaned out old machines over the years, so very few could test win9x. There was exactly one responsible user (Bart, who regularly tested releases and reported bugs) and massive unicode changes were scheduled for FPC 3.0.

Basically those changes brought up "should we still support windows 9x" discussion. The core problem being putting unworkable 9x compatibility constraints on people that didn't have win9x.

I made the suggestion to split the targets into a "winnt"  (then still 2000+) and a "win9x" target, (so winnt people could just work without constraints, and win9x would not constantly broken with winnt commits), but nobody stepped up for the win9x part.

It was not about being old (FPC trunk supports ZX Spectrum). It is just that there seems to be no retro community around win9x like it is for Amiga, ZX Spectrum, C=64 and even Dos and CP/M.

Even Bart was mostly only active just before and after release time, so there was no continuous feedback/usage at all.

Quote
I'm not complaining. Okay? And honestly I don't want do discuss about, I'm just commenting about.  ::)

So am I. But it needs stressing that the general windows devels had already kept it up for 10 years, and feedback was near zero, which made the whole situation unpractical.

Quote
With Borland Delphi 7.0, the latest version with the classic GUI capable of generate Win32 executables,  8.0 is .NET), is possible to develop apps for Win9x (including first Win95 version)

And old FPC/Lazarus also just generate win9x just fine. Just not new Delphi or Lazarus/FPC versions. Same thing.

Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: SlackerNReckless on June 27, 2020, 06:38:05 pm
So am I. But it needs stressing that the general windows devels had already kept it up for 10 years, and feedback was near zero, which made the whole situation unpractical.

Ok! Yeah... like you said, keeping Unicode (Wide) and former ANSI functions is a bit stressing. I have some Delphi 7.0 apps where I had to use "TntWare Delphi Unicode Controls" and develop some forks. The forks have the "/W" meaning Wide (Widestring) in their Application Name, Main form and .exe's filenames have a "W" in the ending. Like Application.exe and ApplicationW.exe

And old FPC/Lazarus also just generate win9x just fine. Just not new Delphi or Lazarus/FPC versions. Same thing.

Yeah... I'm aware of this fact. Some old Lazarus releases, pre 1.0 work in 9x and even NT 3.51. By the way, the best Windows version ever! I like NT 4.0 but the 3.x GUI is lovely...  :-* But for me the best Windows ever will be Win2K. It sucks less than XP and it's more light.

I know it's 2020, but I still develop Win3.x apps. And as I never liked C/C++ I use basically Delphi 1.0 and Borland Turbo Pascal for Windows as Delphi 1.0 can't produce for 3.0. Even patching the 3.1 Delphi 1.0 NE executables signing them for 3.0 they don't work.

Sometimes it's annoying mostly because of 16 bit limitations but it's "relaxing". I still love the 3.x GUI.  I just imagined a Lazarus for Windows 3.x :P

Anyway... it was nice talking to you. See ya!  ;)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 27, 2020, 06:45:38 pm
macOS:
   10.5 to 10.12; Carbon (32bit), Cocoa (64bit, beta), qt and qt5
   (32 or 64bit).
I'm a little confused about that statement. Does it mean, that Lazarus 2.0.10 will only run on macOS 10.5 to 10.12? Or is 10.12 the minimum requirement and Lazarus 2.0.10 will run on 10.12 and higher up to Catalina (10.15)?
Afaik: Carbon <> Cocoa
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on June 27, 2020, 06:51:37 pm
Well if someone wants to work on W95 or W3.1 => Open a new thread.

No idea how much work it would be. But you would need to create a new widgetset. Adapting the current WS would not be a solution.

Also it would be build from sources, since the current innosetup needs a newer windows too. (I think I downgraded it for XP again, but I am not sure....)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Handoko on June 27, 2020, 07:01:01 pm
 :-[ Sorry of being off topic. I'm just curious.

... but I still develop Win3.x apps.

Really? Are they your hobby projects or you write them because you're working in a software house?

I meant, Win3.x ... wow!
I wonder who are still using it.

I'm a computer technician, fixing computers is my daily work. Here are many computers, very low end to high end. I live in a developing country, some are rich but most are poor. It's been more than a decade, I haven't seen anyone here using a Win98 computer. But, you still develop for Win3.x, that's really makes me wow!

I ever installed Win 3.1 on a Pentium 4 computer. It really run lightning fast. What kind of computer do you use for developing those apps?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: SlackerNReckless on June 27, 2020, 07:31:56 pm
Well if someone wants to work on W95 or W3.1 => Open a new thread.

No idea how much work it would be. But you would need to create a new widgetset. Adapting the current WS would not be a solution.

Also it would be build from sources, since the current innosetup needs a newer windows too. (I think I downgraded it for XP again, but I am not sure....)

Oh... cool! But it won't be me. At least I gave an idea for someone here. Hope someone gets it. Or not:  :-[

Yeah... it would be a lot of work. Downgrading IDE and mainly the units. At least the compiler we already have it. Thanks a lot, Mr. Martin!  :D

:-[ Sorry of being off topic. I'm just curious.

... but I still develop Win3.x apps.

Really? Are they your hobby projects or you write them because you're working in a software house?

Some sort of hobby as the Win 16 Delphi 1.0 apps I have are downgraded forks of Win32 Delphi 7.0 I have developed in the past. Actually I began developing them in Delphi 3.0 back in 1998. 2.0 is horrible. They are all private, but I really use them.

Moved to 5.0 once and 7.0 later as I noticed they can still work in NT 3.51 like I said, but you need to be very careful as shell functions (of the NT 4.0/Win9x Shell32.dll) don't work and other GDI/User/Kernel and even Networking functions. But a Delphi 7.0 application with only VCL controls and Delphi functions will work without problems.

I'm still intending to move them to D2009 (first Unicode version) but keeping the ANSI and Wide Delphi 7.0 ones. And port them to 64 bits (Win64!) using XE2 and later versions and one day move them to Lazarus. I already did some tests but for a while not. 

Well, because my target always will be backward compatibility. My Delphi 7.0 apps can work since NT 3.51 up to Win10 including Server versions.

[EDIT] Just a past edit. I forgot to reply your last question. Actually I use a Pentium Dual Core 64bits of 3.0Ghz. I managed to install Delphi 7.0. It runs Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bits. I have an old Pentium 3 600Mhz where it has Windows 3.11 for Workgroups with Delphi 1.0 installed, NT 3.51, 4.0 and Windows 95 where I do some tests. Multiple boot, you know. I have a Pentium 4 3.0Hz with Win98SE, Me and 2000 installed for more testings. And two other computers with WinXP installed. One, a Pentium 4 with 2.8Ghz (32bits) and one Dual Core of 2.2ghz (64bits) with XP 64 bits. But these last two ones aren't really needed as they completely work in 2k.

Okay... I'll stop talking now! It's not the subject of this topic. Sorry. Bye!  ;D
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: winni on June 27, 2020, 07:37:39 pm

Sometimes it's annoying mostly because of 16 bit limitations but it's "relaxing". I still love the 3.x GUI.  I just imagined a Lazarus for Windows 3.x :P

Yes - with the nice "speedometer" while installing .
And the nice Gauge in the components palette.
And endless chains of 64k chunks for loading a TIFF image into the RAM.

Those were the days ....

Winni
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: avra on June 27, 2020, 10:11:56 pm
I live in a developing country, some are rich but most are poor. It's been more than a decade, I haven't seen anyone here using a Win98 computer.
Home users do not use it any more, but factories all over the world still do. There was an OS/2 SCADA application running 2 caster plants inside of steelshop. One of my colleagues has transferred it to Win 3.1, and I have upgraded it for Win 98. It couldn't be moved to newer OS because of the drivers. To enable data logging I was able to make a DDE client to read and write SCADA tags, DDE/TCP gateway and custom OPC server so other parts of the plant could communicate to it. It is running 24/7 as we speak. They will get rid of it one day once everything else gets an upgrade, but since that costs tens of millions of dollars we do not see an upgrade each decade. And it is even not the most drastic case. You can still find DOS based X-Ray thickness measurement device (big as a house), or ancient Siemens M70 unix server (nowadays emulated) or IBM mainframes with old real terminals in Hot Strip Mill plants.

So yes, people still use ancient operating systems and there is a need for development tools supporting them. While using latest and greatest is nice, it is not a problem in such cases to pick up an older version.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: marcov on June 27, 2020, 11:59:58 pm
Afaik while formally FPC 2.4.x was the last win9x version, FPC 2.6.x had few issues, and Bart had some patches for them.

Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Bart on June 28, 2020, 12:43:38 am
I mostly had patches for Lazarus.
IIRC I had one patch for fpc (win9xwsmanager unit).

Bart
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: SlackerNReckless on June 28, 2020, 03:52:01 am
Well, I was not intending to reply about this "off-topic" I created here but considering some replies above I'd like to share more thoughts I have about.

1st:

Actually, I found a pretty bad move of Lazarus team removing old Win32 support (Win9x mostly). We know Microsoft is sucking a lot lately, I really hate Windows 8.x and 10. They ended Windows 7 support and now they dropped support for 32bit in Win10. But it's just my humble opinion about. I mean, the fact I think it was a bad move of Lazarus team.  %)

Yeah... OS/2 is still used. It was released as eComStation by Serenity Systems for a while and now as ArcaOS. Nice OS, really 32 bits. Just lacks a 64bits version. I'm aware a lot of companies still use it and even Win3.x software in some parts. Mainly for old (and unportable) like old accounting and database programs without source where the old companies are already defunct and they are totally abandonware.

Even the guys that created ClassicShell (http://www.classicshell.net), a nice Delphi app, stopped developing it, released the source of its latest version again (they had stopped releasing the sources of newer version since then) and complained once in their site saying Microsoft was moving away of classic Win32 compilation and it was becoming hard to follow. They removed this text, but I understood them.

By the way, I always hated the new Start Menu that began with Windows XP, at least Windows XP still had the old one (Classic Menu), while Vista/7, 8.1 and 10 not.

Yeah... Microsoft is really sucking. A lot of old documents, like FAQs, Q&As, mainly KBs and even their old FTP archive are gone. They are forcing people to use only the latest versions of their products. Windows 10 SUCKS! Sorry! :D

2nd:

FreePascal team at least and it's what it seems think in more portability, more targets and as far I know they never dropped support for older operating systems.

It's great as I have developed some DOS FreePascal programs using FreePascal's TStringList object, it's like the Delphi one, great for parsing and processing texts as using old Turpo Pascal 7.0 for texts pretty sucks.

And I like to use Free Vision (their Turbo Vision implementation), it's like developing a Delphi application but in DOS.

By the way, there is a nice wrapper for Delphi called DWPL (http://dwpl.sourceforge.net/), you develop a Delphi Win32 App, add their units to project, changes some functions if needed and guess what? Compile it and you wikl have a certain Dos 32 bits Application using WDOX extender and a modified version of TurboVision working like a Delphi one. It's so adorable...  8-)

And just saying this: FreePascal, you guys are AMAZING!!! Long life, FreePascal, Pascal forever!  ;D

3rd, last and my suggestion about:

As I can see Bart appeared. Hey guy! Nice to meet you!  :)

Well, you could return with the old Win32 support for Win9x and after releasing it some time later, you could ask people (like recruiting) for Win16 support as I think it would be less painful to port old ANSI functions to their 16-bit counterparts.

It's not so hard to backport (downgrade) a Delphi 7.0 app to 1.0 Win16, You need to change the names of some units, like Windows to Winprocs and Wintypes, if you use text .DFM files (the forms files) you need to convert to old binary ones. Delphi has a converter for them, not only the IDE as they have a command-line one, "convert.exe". You need to make some changes in the .DPR removing "Application.Initialize;" too. This procedure doesn't exist in Delphi 1.0.

But before moving a Delphi 7.0 to Delphi 1.0, change only the .DFMs to binary and use Delphi 2.0. Some new properties/procedures and functions will be gone but as it's the first Win32 version it's very similar to Delphi 1.0.

After changing the codes, etc. If the original Delphi 7.0 program compile in Delphi 2.0 it will compile very well in Delphi 1.0, except some Win32 functions, you will have to use Win16 one and not using any of the Win32 VCL Components. That famous tab in the IDE.

And don't forget to change the .DPR's, .PAS's and .DFM's to 8.3 filenames and uppercase them. Don't use the trunked ones, like "A_UNIT~1.PAS"

Of course, a lot of functions of Win32 API don't exist in Win16 API, but some are very similar, the only real problems are the 16-bit limitations. An integer is really 16bit, if you need at least a 32bit integer, you need to change your variable to "longint". Strings are 256 bytes, a lot of other items are really limited to 64K (or 65536 bytes), mainly the TStrings/TStringList objects.

The Delphi 1.0 IDE is limited, you can't write a line of code with more than 256 characters. If declaring vars try trunking their names to fit the line like in functions or procedures. If declaring a long const string declare the const string in two or more parts if needed, like:
 
const1 = 'string very long...';
const2 = 'string very long...';

and concatenate them in code normally using the '+'.

Comments are annoying, only the old ones work {} the new ones //. If you comment a lot you will have to replace them.

Even the Unit can't have a large file size. I had two programs here where I had to  create an extra unit and move some procedures/functions to it. Delphi 1.0 gives an error trying to compile the code. Not related with stack or memory as the Delphi program will run normally.

By the way, the Delphi 1.0 has some source code. Not all as the latest versions. Mainly the Client/Server 1.0. I think you can use them as base. A lot of Win16 API's are declared in them.

Well, I can help later providing tips for Win16 backporting, but only if someone really starts a "Lazarus for Win 3.x" here. Hardly, I know.

Just PM me and I'll be glad to give a real name, my location, a real e-mail and other contacts. I'm not American neither English is my native language but for a while I won't say my nationality publicly. Okay?  :-X

Okay... I'll stop with all this talking! Sorry for talking too much! :P See ya!  ;)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: trev on June 28, 2020, 10:02:36 am
Dragging this back on topic for a moment... the Lazarus 2.0.8 macOS pkg files:

* fpc-3.0.4-macos-x86_64-laz.pkg
* LazarusIDE-2.0.8-macos-x86_64.pkg
* fpc-src-3.0.4-laz.pkg

do not work on Mountain Lion (10.8.5) giving the somewhat spurious error detailed in the attached Installer dialog.

Can this be bug fixed for 2.0.10?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: JuhaManninen on June 28, 2020, 10:48:30 am
Well, I was not intending to reply about this "off-topic" I created here but considering some replies above I'd like to share more thoughts I have about.
Why didn't you open a new on-topic thread about the issue? Martin explicitly asked for it.
The correct forum section would be :
 Forum »Programming »Widgetset

Quote
Okay... I'll stop with all this talking! Sorry for talking too much! :P See ya!  ;)
You can talk as much as you want in a proper forum thread dedicated for the topic. Why people have an obsession to hijack this thread about Lazarus bug fix release 2.0.10? Martin apparently deleted the earlier hijacked contents. Is there a way to move all hijacked content to a new thread so that also the original author information remains?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: PascalDragon on June 28, 2020, 04:01:37 pm
Quote
Okay... I'll stop with all this talking! Sorry for talking too much! :P See ya!  ;)
You can talk as much as you want in a proper forum thread dedicated for the topic. Why people have an obsession to hijack this thread about Lazarus bug fix release 2.0.10? Martin apparently deleted the earlier hijacked contents. Is there a way to move all hijacked content to a new thread so that also the original author information remains?

There is, because Martin had done exactly this with the previous off topic posts (and here I was not responding to the Win 3.11 posts despite wanting to, because I didn't want to extend the off topic part... ::) )
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: SlackerNReckless on June 28, 2020, 04:50:12 pm
Hijacking? lol  :D

Okay, Mr. JuhaManninen, I won't talk about this here anymore. I'm creating a new forum topic about my 'request" next week, a certain Lazarus for Win 3.x somewhere in the future. Hardly I'll get it, I just know how the things are.

Anyway, sorry for any inconvenience caused by my posts here. You can delete them if you like but you would have to delete their replies too. Including this post!

It was nice to talk about that off-topic here and this was my last post in this topic. My best regards for all!  ;)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: trev on June 29, 2020, 03:43:06 am
I have just confirmed that the Lazarus IDE + Lazarus provided FPC installation issue with pkg files (see https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,50298.msg367411.html#msg367411 for Installer Dialog), also prevents installation of Lazarus + FPC on El Capitan 10.11.6, Yosemite 10.10.5 and Mavericks 10.9.5 in addition to Mountain Lion 10.8.5.

[updated to add El Capitan.]
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: mattias on June 30, 2020, 07:44:12 am
Dragging this back on topic for a moment... the Lazarus 2.0.8 macOS pkg files:

* fpc-3.0.4-macos-x86_64-laz.pkg
* LazarusIDE-2.0.8-macos-x86_64.pkg
* fpc-src-3.0.4-laz.pkg

do not work on Mountain Lion (10.8.5) giving the somewhat spurious error detailed in the attached Installer dialog.

Can this be bug fixed for 2.0.10?

For 10.4 to 10.14 you can use the i386 files.
For 10.12 or higher you can use the x86-64 files.

I have updated the readme txt on sourceforge.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: trev on July 01, 2020, 02:40:52 am
The updated sourceforge README does not seem to contain any of this additional information?

Quote
You need to download and install all three packages fpc, fpc-src and lazarus.

fpc - the Compiler, some command line tools, base units and non visual components like database access
fpcsrc - the sources of fpc and its packages, needed for code browsing
lazarus - the IDE, visual components and help files

* For an overview what changed from previous 2.0 versions
(includes incompatibilities with earlier versions) see:
- https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_2.0_fixes_branch

* For an overview what changed from previous 1.8 versions
(includes incompatibilities with earlier versions) see:
- https://wiki.freepascal.org/Lazarus_2.0.0_release_notes
- https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3.0.4
- https://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_New_Features_3.0

* Checksums can be found at http://www.lazarus-ide.org/index.php?page=checksums

* For additional information visit our homepage, forum, wiki, and FAQ:
-- https://www.lazarus-ide.org/
-- https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus_on_MacOS_X
-- https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/
-- https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Faq
Source: README.txt, updated 2020-06-30

Note that:

Quote
https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus_on_MacOS_X

should be:

Quote
https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus_on_macOS
.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: jma_sp on July 05, 2020, 11:31:37 am
Thankyou to the team for the effort.


Only one question and is if will be a future release for Haiku 32  & 64 bits.

I have tried to compile with freepascal 3.2.0 and latest Lazarus snapshot but ever finalized with error.

make clean all LCL_PLATFORM=qt
make clean all LCL_PLATFORM=qt5

Best Regards.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Milsa on July 06, 2020, 06:32:58 pm
And this issue?

It is very old but not done:
https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=29141
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on July 06, 2020, 07:45:51 pm
And this issue?

It is very old but not done:
https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=29141
Like any open issue, it should get fixed. I do not know why this particular issue is not getting picked up.

However this is not part of this release preparation. The issue isn't yet solved, so it can not be merged.

For anything that is not about this 2.0.10, a new thread can and should be opened.


Also building of 2.0.10 has already begun. So no more changes can be made for 2.0.10
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: JuhaManninen on July 07, 2020, 11:10:19 am
Only one question and is if will be a future release for Haiku 32  & 64 bits.
Start a new thread in forum section :
 Forum »Programming »Widgetset
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: jcdammeyer on July 09, 2020, 08:36:11 pm
I'm working on a project that will need to compile on WIN-7 (WIN-10), Linux and specifically the Raspberry Pi and Beaglebone Black. 

Using the:
LazSerial v0.3
Serial Port Component for Lazarus
by Jurassic Pork  03/2013 04/2020

It requires access to FTDI USB serial ports for accessing a common CAN bus dongle (CANUSB from Lawicel).  I have this functioning on the PC but the Linux side for serial ports (as stated in the LazSerial docs) is not yet complete.   

The problems Lazarus on the Beagle Bone and the Pi are not the same revision and I've had programs that work on the Pi but have features that don't on the Beagle.  Is there a plan to bring some of these more common small ARM based boards up to the same level as the PC/MAC/Linux versions?

The concept of write once compiler anywhere only works if the systems are the same revisions.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: JuhaManninen on July 09, 2020, 10:45:22 pm
@jcdammeyer, please do not hijack this thread about a Lazarus bug fix release 2.0.10.
Instead create a new thread in a proper section, for example :
 Forum »Programming »Networking and Web Programming

I don't understand why so many people want to hijack exactly this thread.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on July 09, 2020, 11:46:28 pm
Well this post is actually "release" (as in distribution) related. It can even be interpreted (I do not know the posters intend) to add rpi to our releases.

Currently official released versions (which is what the thread is about) exist only for the platform for which we provide on sourceforge.

Any platform not represented on our sourceforge, can be attempted to be installed from source.


"Distributions" available via Linux repositories, or other channels, are not made by the Lazarus team.
And we have no influence on them. In most cases we do not even know the people who put those repositories together.


We do not currently have any ready release builds for none Intel. (i.e. arm on rpi).
I do not know if anyone is going to volunteer to build them. (including testing, and maintaining fixes for the new platform).


So anyway, as I said this thread is meant for the existing release process, and existing targets.

So for a new target, as Juha said, please open a new thread / or consult the mail list (different audience, widening the reach for potential contributors).
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Birger52 on July 10, 2020, 07:36:49 pm
Got an email from SourceForge - downloaded and installed.
All my own components are of course missing.
Trying to install them, gives this - but it's nt my components giving trouble...
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on July 10, 2020, 07:42:34 pm
1) Check Tools > Options => is the path to the compiler up to date (i.e. 3.2.0) ?

2) Do a clean build (Tools > Config build Lazarus)

A rebuild, should also bring your components back.
They are still installed (as in: on the list of installed packages). But they are not compiled in.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Birger52 on July 10, 2020, 08:12:50 pm
Think there has maybe been a problem with the installation.
Downloaded again, and installed.
First time, It didn't ask to uninstall - second time it found a 2.0.8 version, tho it should have been overwritten by the 2.0.10.
Anyhow - playing now as expected.

And the installed versus "compiled in"...
My components are there - quite right - and marked for "installation".
But they are not easily compiled in - button(s) to do so are disabled...
(Installed something I don't need, to get it to install all my components in one go - and then have to uninstall the not needed.)

You're saying I should/could have rebuild IDE instead, and that would bring back the components I had in former version?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on July 10, 2020, 09:43:58 pm
As for the disabled buttons => if you could, please report a bug.

As for getting the packages to work. Yes, just go to menu: Tools > Build Lazarus IDE...
If any compile error should happen, then use menu: Tools > Configure Build Lazarus IDE... // And tick the checkbox "Clean all".

---
The "Save and Rebuild" button in the package install dialog does 2 things:
1) Save any changes you made => no changes made, already saved.
2) rebuild the IDE, in the same manner that the above steps do.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: JuhaManninen on July 11, 2020, 12:29:56 am
You're saying I should/could have rebuild IDE instead, and that would bring back the components I had in former version?
Yes. Tools -> Configure "Build Lazarus". See Martin's answer.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Birger52 on July 11, 2020, 12:53:46 am
Okay - thx both of you.
Makes more sense now  8-)

"Installed" and "Compiled into" is not really logical - and it's not obvious that there is a difference or what the difference is.
When creating a new component or making changes to an existing one, the package window has a "Compile" button. It compiles the package.
Under "Use", there is an "Install" option. It will actually compile the the package into the IDE (as I see or understand it), as will as install the package.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on July 11, 2020, 01:02:50 am
"Installed" and "Compiled into" is not really logical - and it's not obvious that there is a difference or what the difference is.

True, as a user you should not need to know.

Currently packages can not be loaded at runtime (i.e. as libraries, or similar). Instead the entire IDE is recompiled, and the package is included.

At least for run time packages. That is packages that affect the IDE, or are needed in the Form-Designer. (A package that only runs in your app, and has no components for the designer, is not needed in the IDE)

Anyway normally the IDE will just do the work, if you install the package.

Only in case of an upgrade of the IDE this is not currently the case. Very unfortunate...
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Milsa on July 11, 2020, 10:25:31 am
Will it without rebuild Lazarus in the future?
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: PascalDragon on July 11, 2020, 10:55:11 am
Will it without rebuild Lazarus in the future?

This depends on support for dynamic packages in FPC. My hope is that I get everything required working for 3.4, so from then on Lazarus can use that as well, though it will probably have to continue to support static linking as well due to not all systems supporting dynamic packages from the start.
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: PascalDragon on July 11, 2020, 11:02:28 am
Yesterday I've noticed a small pecularity after installing Lazarus 2.0.10 32-bit and the 64-bit addon (Windows): I have in PATH the 3.0.4 compiler of 2.0.8 which is the 32-bit compiler together with the 64-bit addon as well. Now for the pecularity: the fpc binary first looks for a cross compiler (ppcrossXXX), then for a native compiler (ppcXXX) when compiling for a different platform, so it first looked for ppcrossx64, found that in PATH and executed that which turned out to be the 3.0.4 one (thus leading to compile errors in my project for Win64 due to me using code only available in 3.2.0). It turned out that the 64-bit compiler in Lazarus' 64-bit addon is now called ppcx64. After renaming it to ppcrossx64 the compiler driver picked up the correct binary.

Now I wonder: is the ppcx64 provided with the 64-bit addon a 64-bit binary (I didn't check, it's at work, at home I use a 64-bit Lazarus)? Cause in that case it would be really useless on a 32-bit Windows system...
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on July 11, 2020, 01:41:32 pm
If you open the "task manager" (ctrl shift esc) and start the ppcx64.exe you can check. 32bit processes have a "(32bit)" at the end of the name (the "process tab, not the "details" tab).
It seems to be 32bit.

The wince arm cross compiler also is called ppcarm.exe

I have no idea what changed the naming.
The build scripts have not changed, they still pass the same arguments to make.
However, still the same old build scripts, only calling make in compiler and in rtl and packages. (or something like that)
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: PascalDragon on July 11, 2020, 02:50:31 pm
If you open the "task manager" (ctrl shift esc) and start the ppcx64.exe you can check. 32bit processes have a "(32bit)" at the end of the name (the "process tab, not the "details" tab).
It seems to be 32bit.

Yes, I'm aware how to check for it. It's just that I'm at work only on Monday again and I don't want to install the 32-bit Lazarus on my computer at home just to check this. ;)

I have no idea what changed the naming.
The build scripts have not changed, they still pass the same arguments to make.
However, still the same old build scripts, only calling make in compiler and in rtl and packages. (or something like that)

Where is the build script located? Just so that I can check what the outcome is...
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: Martin_fr on July 11, 2020, 03:16:57 pm
Where is the build script located? Just so that I can check what the outcome is...

In \lazarus\tools\install\win
for cross compiling  build-cross.bat

I am calling it with (hope I copied it correct, its a .bat, and full of "IF" for other versions)

Code: Text  [Select][+][-]
  1. SET INSTPREFIX=
  2. SET LAZBUILD_TARGET_DIR=B:\Installers\
  3.  
  4. REM  FPC svn dir  /  starting compiler
  5. SET FPC_SVN_BUILD_DIR=B:\Installers\build_sources\fpc_build_tag
  6. SET FPC_SVN_BUILD_EXE=B:\FPC\SVN\ppc386_3_0_4.exe
  7.  
  8. REM  SVN fpc build
  9. SET BINUTILSDIR_SOURCE=B:\Installers\build_sources\fpc_build_tag\install
  10. SET BINUTILSSUBDIR_SOURCE=crossbinw64
  11.  
  12. SET WANTCPU=x86_64
  13. SET WANTOS=win64
  14.  
  15. SET LAZBIN_SVN_BUILD_DIR=B:\Installers\build_sources\svn_laz_bin
  16.  
  17. REM  copy of  x86_64-win64-**.exe  // updated from svn
  18. SET BINUTILSDIR=B:\Installers\build_sources\304cross
  19. if not ["%BINUTILSSUBDIR_SOURCE%"] == [""]  DEL /Q /F /S  %BINUTILSDIR%\*.*
  20. if not ["%BINUTILSSUBDIR_SOURCE%"] == [""]  copy %BINUTILSDIR_SOURCE%\%BINUTILSSUBDIR_SOURCE%\*.* %BINUTILSDIR%\%WANTCPU%-%WANTOS%\
  21.  
  22. REM lazarus binaries svn
  23. SET LAZ_SVN_BUILD_DIR=B:\Installers\build_sources\svn_laz
  24. SET LCL_PLATFORM=win32
  25.  
  26. SET ISCC="C:\Program Files (x86)\Inno Setup 5.6.0U\iscc.exe"
  27. SET PATH="C:\Program Files\TortoiseSVN\bin\";%PATH%
  28. SET SVN="C:\Program Files\TortoiseSVN\bin\svn.exe"
  29.  
  30. if NOT [%LAZTEMPBUILDDIR%]==[] SET LAZTEMPBUILDDIR=b:\tmp_lazbuild
  31. mkdir %LAZTEMPBUILDDIR%
  32.  
  33. b:
  34. cd %LAZ_SVN_BUILD_DIR%\tools\install\win
  35.  
  36. call build-cross.bat   %FPC_SVN_BUILD_DIR%     %LAZ_SVN_BUILD_DIR%   %FPC_SVN_BUILD_EXE%  %WANTCPU% %WANTOS% %LAZBIN_SVN_BUILD_DIR% %WANTSKIP% %INSTPREFIX%
  37.  
  38. move %LAZ_SVN_BUILD_DIR%\tools\install\win\installer.log %LAZBUILD_TARGET_DIR%
  39. move %LAZ_SVN_BUILD_DIR%\tools\install\win\svninfo.txt %LAZBUILD_TARGET_DIR%
  40. move %LAZ_SVN_BUILD_DIR%\tools\install\win\Output\*.* %LAZBUILD_TARGET_DIR%
  41.  
  42. pause
  43.  
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: PascalDragon on July 11, 2020, 05:41:34 pm
Thanks! Let's see whether I can figure that out...
Title: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
Post by: PascalDragon on July 14, 2020, 03:15:50 pm
As a little heads up: the binaries in the 32-bit Windows distribution are indeed 32-bit, so at least no problem there. ;)
TinyPortal © 2005-2018