Hi all,

http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=10327

This bug makes Lazarus 9.25 SVN unusable. Here are the output of lazarus after compiled by fpc 2.2.1 SVN:

sudo make clean
<--- snip --->

make all LCL_PLATFORM=gtk2
<--- snip --->

sudo make install
<--- snip --->

lazarus-ide
TApplication.IconChanged - TODO: convert this message...no implementation in gtk or win32
[FORMS.PP] ExceptionOccurred
Sender=Ecompressionerror
Exception=buffer error
Stack trace:
$081A6BCE
$081A006B
$0819FE44
$0819B1CD
$08198EB1
$08139A51 TFPIMAGEBITMAP__READSTREAM, line 1926 of graphics.pp $0812F004 TBITMAP__LOADFROMSTREAM, line 459 of ./include/bitmap.inc $0812A920 LOADBITMAPFROMLAZARUSRESOURCE, line 1509 of graphics.pp $0808DE8A TSPLASHFORM__CREATE, line 94 of splash.pp $0805BACF main, line 88 of lazarus.pp
TApplication.HandleException buffer error
Stack trace:
$081A6BCE
$081A006B
$0819FE44
$0819B1CD
$08198EB1
$08139A51 TFPIMAGEBITMAP__READSTREAM, line 1926 of graphics.pp $0812F004 TBITMAP__LOADFROMSTREAM, line 459 of ./include/bitmap.inc $0812A920 LOADBITMAPFROMLAZARUSRESOURCE, line 1509 of graphics.pp $0808DE8A TSPLASHFORM__CREATE, line 94 of splash.pp $0805BACF main, line 88 of lazarus.pp

svn update
At revision 13162.

I'm using Ubuntu Gutsy on i386.

Hints? TIA.

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com

Hi Bee,

Revert the file $(FPCDIR)\packages\paszlib\src\zstream.pp to revision 9290

Revert the file $(FPCDIR)\packages\paszlib\src\zstream.pp to revision 9290

Sorry if I sound silly, but how to revert to specific rev number? svn revert command doesn't expect a number. :(

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com

* Bee [Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:22:25 +0700]:

> Revert the file $(FPCDIR)\packages\paszlib\src\zstream.pp to

revision

9290 Sorry if I sound silly, but how to revert to specific rev number? svn revert command doesn't expect a number. :(

svn update -r 9290

Easy way to check:

svn up -r 9290 $(FPCDIR)/packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp

Next 'svn up' updates zstream.pp back to HEAD revision.

To make the change more permanent (locally, of course):

svn merge -rHEAD:9290 $(FPCDIR)/packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp

This merges in the changes between 9290 and HEAD, but backwards, effectively reverting the file back to the 9290 revision.

HTH,

Vinzent.

Easy way to check: svn up -r 9290 $(FPCDIR)/packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp Next 'svn up' updates zstream.pp back to HEAD revision.

Here's what I got...

svn update -r9290 packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp
D packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp
Updated to revision 9290.

So, instead of getting rev 9290, it deletes the file. :(

To make the change more permanent (locally, of course): svn merge -rHEAD:9290 $(FPCDIR)/packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp

Here's what I got...

svn merge -rHEAD:9290
packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp
svn: The location for 'packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp' for revision 9290 does not exist in the repository or refers to an unrelated object

So, both attempt failed. :(

Install rapidSVN produced exactly same result.

To all: Sorry if this thread goes a little bit out of topic. I'm new to svn system. :)

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com

* Bee [Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:00:04 +0700]:

> svn up -r 9290 $(FPCDIR)/packages/paszlib/src/zstream.pp > Next 'svn up' updates zstream.pp back to HEAD revision.

on my:
---

cd C:\Works-FPC\fpc-snap\packages\paszlib\src

...>svn update -r9290 zstream.pp
U zstream.pp
Updated to revision 9290.
---
that's all
go to compilation...

So it seems there the file does not exist in revision 9290 of the repository you are using. In Andrey's version it does, so my best guess is that both of you are using different SVN paths and the file was moved in yours.

Vinzent.

So it seems there the file does not exist in revision 9290 of the repository you are using. In Andrey's version it does, so my best guess is that both of you are using different SVN paths and the file was moved in yours.

As mentioned in http://www.freepascal.org/develop.var, my path points to http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/branches/fixes_2_2

Is it correct?

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com