Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2014-11

"Exception while creating process: Could not detect X-Terminal program" / Fedora 20

11 messages · 6 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Martin Frb

There is a bug report, where the user says he gets this error.

http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=27003#c79020

He may not have the latest Lazarus, and he still has to report his fpc version, but terminal detection does not seem to have changed that much within 2.6.x.
I did ask him for some more feedback.

But in the end, this error is in fpc, so I would appreciate, if someone from the fpc team could have a look.

Note the bug is still needed in Lazarus, as the handling of this error in the IDE will need to be improved.

Reply by email

Michael Van Canneyt
to Martin Frb: There is a bug report, where the user says he gets this error.…
Martin Frb wrote 15 lines
There is a bug report, where the user says he gets this error. http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=27003#c79020 He may not have the latest Lazarus, and he still has to report his fpc version, but terminal detection does not seem to have changed that much within 2.6.x. I did ask him for some more feedback. But in the end, this error is in fpc, so I would appreciate, if someone from the fpc team could have a look. Note the bug is still needed in Lazarus, as the handling of this error in the IDE will need to be improved.

What is there to look at ?

There must be one of the 8 (!) supported terminal programs in the path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You can't get more clear than that, I would think ?

Michael.

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to Michael Van Canneyt
Show quoted text 6 lines
[...] What is there to look at ? There must be one of the 8 (!) supported terminal programs in the path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You can't get more clear than that, I would think ?

I'm curious. Why does fpc need a terminal?

Mattias

Reply by email

Jonas Maebe
to Mattias Gaertner
Mattias Gaertner wrote
I'm curious. Why does fpc need a terminal?

The indentation in fcl-process/src/unix/process.inc is a bit confusing, but at first sight it's only required if poNewConsole is specified (which is logical).

Jonas

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to Jonas Maebe
Show quoted text 6 lines
On 09/11/14 11:00, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > I'm curious. Why does fpc need a terminal? The indentation in fcl-process/src/unix/process.inc is a bit confusing, but at first sight it's only required if poNewConsole is specified (which is logical).

Yes, that's logical.

It seems Martin thinks that the compiler needs a terminal. Why does the compiler use poNewConsole?

Mattias

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Mattias Gaertner

In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said:

Show quoted text 7 lines
> The indentation in fcl-process/src/unix/process.inc is a bit confusing, > but at first sight it's only required if poNewConsole is specified > (which is logical). Yes, that's logical. It seems Martin thinks that the compiler needs a terminal.

If I look at the bugreport it is "F9", so I assume the running the result within GDB is. I assume gdb does.

Reply by email

Martin Frb
to Mattias Gaertner: On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:12:16 +0100 Yes, that's logical. It seems Martin thinks that the…
Mattias Gaertner wrote 5 lines
Yes, that's logical. It seems Martin thinks that the compiler needs a terminal. Why does the compiler use poNewConsole?

It is about starting the debugger (if I read the issue correct).

And actually, this is very old code, and has not been reviewed in a long time, so I do not know, if it is indeed needed. (It may be something required on win).

Reply by email

Martin Frb
to Michael Van Canneyt: What is there to look at ? There must be one of the 8 (!) supported terminal programs in…
Michael Van Canneyt wrote 7 lines
What is there to look at ? There must be one of the 8 (!) supported terminal programs in the path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You can't get more clear than that, I would think ?

Well to me this error says, this is the current supported list, probably because this are all known (common) terminals at the time this was last looked at.

So if a system comes along, that differs, this list may need to be reviewed?

I just checked on a Fedora 18. There the terminal is called "terminal", and this is not in the list.

Though on my FC18 there also is xterm. I do not remember if it was there to start with, or if I added it.

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Martin Frb

In our previous episode, Martin Frb said:

Show quoted text 6 lines
> path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You > can't get more clear than that, I would think ? Well to me this error says, this is the current supported list, probably because this are all known (common) terminals at the time this was last looked at.

(afaik you can additional terminals to a global called "tryterminals", so you can override without rebuild)

Reply by email

Michael Van Canneyt
to Marco van de Voort
Marco van de Voort wrote 10 lines
In our previous episode, Martin Frb said: >> path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You >> can't get more clear than that, I would think ? > > Well to me this error says, this is the current supported list, probably > because this are all known (common) terminals at the time this was last > looked at. (afaik you can additional terminals to a global called "tryterminals", so you can override without rebuild)

Exactly.
Something added specifically to deal with this kind of situations, if the 8 defaults are not enough:

Var
  TryTerminals : Array of string;
  XTermProgram : String;

Michael.

Reply by email