- Any bug-fixes already made to trunk, that you believe should still be35467 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35467) - TWindowProcHelper.CalcClipRgn micropatch.
merged to the fixes branch (fixes that are not listed on the above wiki page)
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.
Not that my opinion matters much but ...
...
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.
Will 2.0.10 still support 3.0.4 ?It should.
- 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)
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.
Latest News
June 19th, 2020
FPC version 3.2.0 has been released!
....
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.
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
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.
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.
35465 (https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35465) - The LCLBoundsToWin32Bounds function has two unused parameters: Width and Height.These are not bug fixes. The rule is clear and simple: a bug fix release gets only bug fixes.
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.
Can be considered a bug fix. There was an uninitialized variable. Added to the list for merging.Thank you.
...
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.
Revision: 61295I added r61295 to the list for merging. It is more than a year old. Forgotten earlier somehow.
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
Thanks.
If not a secret, to give link to 2.0.10 trunk+3.20, because where I have is not valid?
Friends, will there be any changes or improvements in the debugger?Not in 2.0.10.
The Lazarus team has scheduled
Lazarus 2.0.10
for July 2020 (estimated 4th to 11th)
What about the 19th of June:
And the language Pascal must have 50th birthday in 2020. Does anybody know the exact date?
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)?
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)?
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).
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)
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.
And old FPC/Lazarus also just generate win9x just fine. Just not new Delphi or Lazarus/FPC versions. Same thing.
Afaik: Carbon <> CocoamacOS: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)?
10.5 to 10.12; Carbon (32bit), Cocoa (64bit, beta), qt and qt5
(32 or 64bit).
... but I still develop Win3.x apps.
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....)
:-[ 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?
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
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.
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.
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?
QuoteOkay... 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?
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?
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
https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus_on_MacOS_X
https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus_on_macOS.
And this issue?Like any open issue, it should get fixed. I do not know why this particular issue is not getting picked up.
It is very old but not done:
https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=29141
Only one question and is if will be a future release for Haiku 32 & 64 bits.Start a new thread in forum section :
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.
"Installed" and "Compiled into" is not really logical - and it's not obvious that there is a difference or what the difference is.
Will it without rebuild Lazarus in the future?
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.
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...