Hi all,
As I've already mentioned few weeks ago on lazdevel, today we branched 1.0 :)

branch is here:
http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/branches/fixes_1_0/

wiki with revisions which have to be merged from trunk (also there will be links about other 1.0 stuff like changes etc): http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_1.0_fixes_branch or
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Lazarus_1.0_fixes_branch

Current trunk version 0.9.31 is 1.1 as of r36507.

1.In next days snapshots will be versioned as 1.1
2.For testers:
svn co http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/branches/fixes_1_0 lazarus 3.We are planning to release 1.0 in next 3 months, but before that we will relese 1..XX RC candidates - you'll be informed about it.

Happy Lazarus 1.0 !

zeljko

Hi all, As I've already mentioned few weeks ago on lazdevel, today we branched 1.0 :)

Nice indeed.

Whatever happened to 0.99, which as I understood would be the next (and last) stable before 1.0?

Bart

Progress was nice last 2 months, so we decided to go in 1.0 direction.

zeljko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120402/9d851b70/attachment.html>

What's the update policy? I just updated examples/fpdocmanager, do I have to update the new branch, too? If so, what's the suggested procedure for updates that should go into both the branch(es) and trunk?

Which FPC version is suggested/assumed for 1.x?

What's the difference (in content)?

What's the future of dragging in 1.0? Will fixes (workarounds) be added to make the dockable IDE work? By conditional compilation, at least?

DoDi

2012/4/1 :

Great! :)

Is it right that on about is reported "version 0.9.31"?

Regards,
Kjow

This needs a big press release!

Carl

Carl Kruck wrote

This needs a big press release!

And release parties! :)

Michael

Yes, will be changed soon.

zeljko

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120402/8a17e6f0/attachment.html>

Michael Fuchs wrote

Am 02.04.2012 11:03, schrieb Carl Kruck: > This needs a big press release! And release parties! :)

Yes to both & thanks to Zeljko (and undoubtedly the other developers).

Very good decision to move to 1.0!

Regards,
Reinier

2012/4/1 :

Everytime I open lazarus.exe with --pcp parameter I get the "Welcome to Lazarus IDE" windows to configure Lazarus/Compiler/FC sources paths.

They are all "OK" and hitting "Start IDE" works without issues.

It just starts with this popup.

Regards,
Kjow

No, just add which revisions need to be merged to fixes_1_0 here http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_1.0_fixes_branch

no difference, both addresses point to the same page.

Don't know ... you should ask Paul or Mattias about it.

zeljko

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120402/f67a5c91/attachment.html>

That's because of version change in trunk.
ide/version.inc is important in this case.
I'm using trunk and my devel version without --pcp and got that dialog when started lazarus from trunk directory, but it reads my devel dir version

zeljko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120402/e0820889/attachment.html>

zeljko wrote

Don't know ... you should ask Paul or Mattias about it.

I think Paul has already clearly replied before.

Best regards,
Paul Ishenin

I can't remember that being in the original message. It was more something that there were multiple competing dragging implementations.

Quoting yourself?

But since nobody else replied, I assume that dragging is no more considered a supported feature of Lazarus. A reasonable decision, it leaves more freedom to the developers for adding unique new features, which make Lazarus more featured than Delphi :-]

DoDi

Op 2 april 2012 20:18 heeft Hans-Peter Diettrich
het volgende geschreven:

Marco van de Voort schrieb: discussions suggests to me that it can and will never be made work again. If not in an outstanding release like 1.0, when else?

Finally a question about drag-drop I can answer. :-)

In a more outstanding release like 1.2 or later.

Vincent

There exists only one DragManager, and it is too vulnerable against bad coding practices, as observed in the LCL and IDE.

The absence of fundamental knowledge about drag-drop in all related discussions suggests to me that it can and will never be made work again. If not in an outstanding release like 1.0, when else?

DoDi

Hello,

Just an idea for 1.0 (Hopefully sooner than later...)

One single formatting settings that are used by all code formatting related features.

Now there are lot of settings that are basically all related into the Code formatting (How to write and or format code)

And there should be live preview also (This should be quite feasible for 1.0).

There are some things I am not able to do currently

like aligning like this :

var
    I                        : Integer;
   lSomeVariable : Integer;

Also I would like to this kind of aligns to alight them self's into the nearest tabstop.

Sometimes when formatter aligns something and it is not aligned to nearest tabstop it is ugly and difficult to indent the code into the preformatted one with tab key...

Hope this is understandable text, I am still more than less in sleep :)

-TP-

http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_1.0_fixes_branch http://wiki.freepascal.org/Lazarus_1.0_fixes_branch

Sorry for being a PITA, but neither one of these nor

http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_0.99.0_release_notes

seems to say anything about offline help / context sensitive help / offline Documentation (content and installing same).

I have not the impression that this issue is on a level, that can be called "1.x" (I.e. allowing for absolute beginners to easily get started without installing (Turbo-) Delphi just to view the help.) (Please ignore me if you think I am wrong.)

Is there an updated wiki page documenting the road map for offline help / context sensitive help ?
(I understand, the huge discussion on that issue broke up without a clear decision regarding that and I am not inclined to restart it, but I'd like to monitor the results on such a Wiki page. )

-Michael

Michael Schnell wrote

I have not the impression that this issue is on a level, that can be called "1.x" (I.e. allowing for absolute beginners to easily get started without installing (Turbo-) Delphi just to view the help.) (Please ignore me if you think I am wrong.)

Just chiming in. Hope nobody takes this personally, but whenever a decision is made to release a version, there's a huge amount of discussion on the mailing list. (I'm responding to Michael's post above, but don't intend to single him out at all)
Often, people think that certain features should be present, otherwise the product is not fit for release.

I think we should be very glad that the Lazarus guys spend their time and effort in releasing fairly often - this shows improvement and lets non-SVN users/distros upgrade more easily... which will improve the chances of people contributing patches/issues that are more relevant for the current state of the source code.
Apart from that, releasing 1.0 is a good PR move IMO. If those devs heed all these requirements on the ML, no release would ever get out.

I therefore suggest we try to avoid these kind of discussions as much as possible and try to improve the product instead. If the direction development is going really can't coexist with the features people want to see, why not branch off for that feature and try and integrate it when it the feature is complete?

Now we get a huge amount of wasted time, heated emotions and no real benefit.

I'll close off thanking the Lazarus guys again for making it to 1.0 and with Michael's excellent words: Please ignore me if you think I am wrong... because I don't want to start yet another discussion...

Thanks,
Reinier

Reinier Olislagers wrote

I think we should be very glad that the Lazarus guys spend their time and effort in releasing fairly often

I of course 100 % agree to this, I did not mean to bash anybody.

-Michael

Michael Schnell hat am 3. April 2012 um 12:03
geschrieben:

Having an offline would be nice, but it is not a blocker for 1.0.

As you know, the help consists of many different parts. There were many improvements compared to 0.9.30.

All developers are busy with fixing bugs and at the moment no one is working on the offline help.
If anyone that reads this wants to help with the help, just write a mail.

1.0 is neither a commercial product, nor a version for absolute beginners.

What part of offline wiki do you want to help with? Yes, I know, you don't have time to help. But maybe others want to help.

Mattias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120403/22c357a0/attachment-0001.html>

2012/4/3 Mattias Gaertner :

Having an offline would be nice, but it is not a blocker for 1.0.

The way I understand it offline help for the RTL, FCL and LCL already works. LHelp shows when pressing F1.

Surely there are some issues, and missing features, but that's different from not I am missing something?

Not by default. You need to install the documentation, a documentation viewer and some package. The viewer is built the first time is needed, but after a bit of wait all you get is a dialog telling you to "put the chm files in some directory" without information about what these chm files are or where to find them.

In any case, 1.0 is just a number. I disagree about the PR part, currently Lazarus is far from polished, but the world has seen worse. Delphi might had better documentation in its first releases but it wasn't as stable for example.

Kostas "Bad Sector" Michalopoulos

Kostas Michalopoulos wrote

In any case, 1.0 is just a number. I disagree about the PR part, currently Lazarus is far from polished, but the world has seen worse. Delphi might had better documentation in its first releases but it wasn't as stable for example.

agreed... plus "we" do not know how many years the v1.0 of delphi was in development... we might guess based on TP/BP stuffs but "we" still do not know for sure... it can easily be for more years than FP/Laz has been in development ;)

Mattias Gaertner wrote

What part of offline wiki do you want to help with?

Those that I can be sure of being included in the online help by some automated mechanism. Here of course my theme would be Queued Mainthread Events, Threads-communication, and friends.

-Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120404/9badbf2c/attachment-0001.html>

Grrrrrr. Of course I meant to write "offline help".

I was confused by your mentioning "offline Wiki". What do you mean by this ?

-Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120404/c03216f6/attachment.html>

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote

Or I am missing something?

AFAIU, some parts of the online documentation can't be included in the offline help yet. (There should be help (at least) on the "topics": "Using the help system", "IDE", "FPC Language", "RTL functions" "LCL functions".)

To me the biggest problem is, that there is no automatic process (yet), and seemingly not even agreed upon, to create all these "topics" of the offline help - that have been updated by helpful contributors, and included into some svn by the "powers" - by means of an (at least partly) automated command.

I really don't want to discuss this here (again), but I'd like to stay tuned in case the "powers" decide upon such a process.

-Michael

All normal pages and images will be included in the offline wiki. Special pages, like help, random, category, user, user_talk will not be included.
All translated pages will be included as well.

Mattias

A snapshot of the wiki with a search.

Mattias

Mattias Gaertner wrote

All normal pages and images will be included in the offline wiki.

Does this mean that the "offline Wiki" is the upcoming Offline Help ?

Will it be possible to press F1 on a word and the appropriate "offline Wiki" page will be displayed ? (I understand that it is possible to create a "help plugin" for the Lazarus IDE that might be able to perform this task)

-Michael

I'm sorry to mix in a discussion, but I wonder, whats the point of having an offline copy of the wiki by default?

Why not simply a OpenURL(online-wiki-url); when the user presses F1?

And in de menu help -> help a simple form stating the help can only be viewed when there is a active internet connection. That simple form may also contain two "links" (Clickable labels) 1 being a link to the wiki and 2 being a link to the wikipage explaining how to download a copy of the help and modify your lazarus to use it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120404/3ed79395/attachment.html>

On 04/04/2012 11:02 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > All normal pages and images will be included in the offline wiki. Does this mean that the "offline Wiki" is the upcoming Offline Help ?

No. The "offline wiki" is just the possibility to browse the wiki offline.

Maybe it will eventually be integrated with the fpdoc help and some more helps. But without the basic offline wiki that's just a dream.

Will it be possible to press F1 on a word and the appropriate "offline Wiki" page will be displayed ? (I understand that it is possible to create a "help plugin" for the Lazarus IDE that might be able to perform this task)

There is no 1:1 mapping between word and wiki page.

At the moment there are two searches for the offline wiki pages. Both have their pros and cons.

Mattias

I'm sorry to mix in a discussion, but I wonder, whats the point of having an offline copy of the wiki by default? Why not simply a OpenURL(online-wiki-url); when the user presses F1?

That's the current implementation.
Some users do not have a 24/7 good internet connection.

Yes, once the offline wiki is available some hints where to get it will be added.

Mattias

There are mappings between some IDE windows and wiki though

Martin hat am 4. April 2012 um 13:43 geschrieben:

Yes. But he asked about F1 on a word, which I guess is about a word in the source editor.

When the offline wiki works, I will check what needs to be done in the IDE to switch.

Mattias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120404/5045043b/attachment.html>

I updated my Lazarus today, from SVN trunk, and everything works. But the splash form shows the old version 0.9.31. However if I click in Help>About the info is correct (version 1.1).

Lazarus 1.1 r36566 FPC 2.6.1 i386-win32-win32/win64

Marcos Douglas

Op 4 april 2012 22:50 heeft Marcos Douglas het
volgende geschreven:

Did you recompile startlazarus?

Vincent

i'm on 36559 and my splash shows 1.1 at the bottom... i start my lazarus via startlazarus...

i'm pretty sure you've also seen my exchanges concerning compiling from the command line instead of svn update and then firing lazarus and compiling a new laz from in there? if so, we've learned (in the last months) that we should "make clean" before "svn up"... then "make all" (the easy way) to build all the new tools and such... then we can "lazbuild blah blah" to build the new lazarus... at least my lazbuild.exe and startlazarus.exe are built every time...

To recompile Lazarus I just use the IDE.. I thought the command Build All recompile everything. If not, how I recompile the startlazarus?

Marcos Douglas

I use scripts to compile the FPC but to Lazarus I only use the IDE. I can't use "make all" because all configuration, components, etc will gone.

Marcos Douglas

[...] To recompile Lazarus I just use the IDE.. I thought the command Build All recompile everything. If not, how I recompile the startlazarus?

Compile project ide/startlazarus.lpi.

Or use "make clean all".

Mattias

Maybe the Build command, on IDE, would do this?

Or use "make clean all".

As I said, I can't use "make all" because all configuration, components, etc will gone.

Marcos Douglas

[...] I can't use "make all" because all configuration, components, etc will gone.

No. Make does not delete/alter configurations.
In fact it does not even know where your configuration is. That's why it can only build a default IDE or a default big IDE.

When you start such a default IDE, it will read your configuration. If you use it to build a new IDE it will install your packages. Then you get a new IDE with your configuration and your components.

Or you can use lazbuild to build an IDE with your components in a console.

Mattias

Sorry, I think I did not understand. You're saying I should use Make to build a default IDE at the first time. After that I should use the Build command (on IDE) or lazbuild tool to recompile with my own configurations and components?

Marcos Douglas

"make clean all" is the clean way.

In 99,9% of all svn revisions it is enough to rebuild the IDE via the IDE.

Mattias

as mattias and i have been discussing, the easiest way is "make clean" before "svn up"... then "make all" after that... then you can use lazbuild to build based on profiles (eg: "debug ide", "normal ide", "optimized ide" which are all defaults) and those would also include your own defined profiles just the same as in the IDE... provided that i've been following along and understanding... as such, i just reported a bug today wherein lazbuild still builds debug versions when it is not supposed to do so... i'm hoping this is fixed and working properly when laz v1.0 is released in another few months...

my setup is based off of (your??) wiki instructions for total SVN starting of FPC and lazarus... i've been working on an updatelaz script (.bat file on winwhatever) which is now working for the basic needs... just to get the above mentioned bug fixed and life will be golden again :P ;)

It's recommended if I have an error, right?
We use "make clean all", get a default IDE and recompile again using pcp param to restart all configurations, components, etc. But I have to compile twice. Am I right?

In 99,9% of all svn revisions it is enough to rebuild the IDE via the IDE.

OK.
I compiled project ide/startlazarus.lpi and I got an error because the startlazarus.exe is running... of course. So, I started Lazarus without use startlazarus and I compiled again. Now I can see the splash updated.

Marcos Douglas

For FPC I always use "make distclean" before update from SVN and then "make [...]" using my script.
I never used lazbuild. The IDE can do this, why complicate? ;-)

my setup is based off of (your??) wiki instructions for total SVN starting of FPC and lazarus... i've been working on an updatelaz script (.bat file on winwhatever) which is now working for the basic needs... just to get the above mentioned bug fixed and life will be golden again :P ;)

Yes, I wrote the Installation instructions to use FPC and Lazarus from SVN to Win32. After someone improved the scripts.

I have a new script that I improved to compile FPC (32 and 64 using cross) with some optionals parameters etc. But to Lazarus the IDE works very fine.
Today I saw this little "problem" in the splash form... well, I can compile startlazarus some times, that is very simple too.

Marcos Douglas

ummm... after that, as i wrote in my previous, you run lazbuild to build what you really want... "make all" is the "cheap" way out... it builds everything including a basic default default (yes) lazarus so that one can at least get up and running... lazbuild is supposed to then be able to build the same lazarus.exe as you do from in the IDE's "Tools->build lazarus" selection with the chosen profile... this is what mattias and i have been working on this last week in the "lazbuild build IDE profiles" thread ;)

Mattias Gaertner wrote

Or you can use lazbuild to build an IDE with your components in a console.

+1000000~

that's what "we're" working on :)

when i can keep off the side trips and stick to the main task :P

Marcos Douglas wrote

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > "make clean all" is the clean way. It's recommended if I have an error, right?

ummm... noooo... please see the "lazbuild build IDE profiles" thread...

We use "make clean all", get a default IDE and recompile again using pcp param to restart all configurations, components, etc. But I have to compile twice. Am I right?

yes, there is that but if "make all" is not used, the one must know and call all of the necessary make targets without the IDE one to get all the tools built...

> In 99,9% of all svn revisions it is enough to rebuild the IDE via the > IDE.

that's what my discussions in the "lazbuild build IDE profiles" thread are all about... why have to manually go into the IDE to build a new IDE after a svn update?? i start my "updatelaz" script which cleans the dirs, updates from svn, and then does the building of the tools and lazarus... now that things are working better, i can go have a cuppa' joe while everything does all its churning and burning... on this particular workstation, that's about 30 minutes or so... maybe more... maybe less...

hummm... interesting...

Yes.

We use "make clean all", get a default IDE and recompile again using pcp param to restart all configurations, components, etc. But I have to compile twice. Am I right?

Yes.
Compiling once with the default settings and once with your settings helps if compiling fails.

AFAIK startlazarus should end itself shortly after starting the IDE. Maybe you were too quick, maybe your virus scanner was still scanning startlazarus.exe.

Mattias

Sorry. I think I still didn't understand what advantages to use lazbuild instead of IDE>Build

And lazbuild do this, i.e., build ALL tools, sources and IDE (of course)?

OK, I see at least one advantage to use lazbuild now: I can have ONE big script that clear, update and compile all sources and tools. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't see many other advantages. I don't update always -- I like to see what changed before update -- and the only difference between use the IDE instead lazbuild to compile is that the user have to run the IDE and click in Build -- and I can go have a cup of coffe -- and the lazbuild (working together with a big script) can be running with a single command.
But you can change my mind. =)

=)

Marcos Douglas

Oh right, that's I thought, thanks.
I had need this "technique" when I had problems with update from SVN.

Hmm... OK, I did not know that. I will monitor if startlazarus end itself. Thanks.

Marcos Douglas

Marcos Douglas hat am 5. April 2012 um 14:04 geschrieben:

I was wrong. It does not stop itself.
Maybe this can be changed.

Mattias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20120405/aa25b7dd/attachment.html>

2012/4/5 Mattias Gaertner :

I think so.
Thanks again.

Marcos Douglas

my bad, too... i was uncorrect saying "no" above... yes, "make clean all" is how you start from fresh and build all tools clean... i was trying to say "no" because "make clean" should already be run before "svn up" and so then "make all" is all that should be needed at that point...

advantages?

1. perform all update tasks from command line
2. no need to perform steps manually

at least those two... with what i've been doing, the goal has been to type "updatelaz" at the command line and then return some minutes later to find at least one shiny new lazarus.exe... with the current methods, there's four shiny new exe's with one chosen one being duplicated to the current lazarus.exe you want to run...

i've not dug that deep into the multi-megabyte logs i've been generating but if memory serves, the tools are built with "make all" after "svn up"... i don't think they are built again after that... startlazarus might be but it should not be necessary... a quick peek at my (currently running) process shows that startlazarus is built when the default default lazarus.exe is built which is during "make all"...

yes :) but it need not be all that "big"... mine is currently 5kb plus a small kickstarter script for redirection capabilities but that's because it "beautifies" the redirection output with section headers and echoed command lines... strictly speaking, with no beautification or errorlevel checking, there's only three or four lines that do all the work plus one copy line... that give one default default exe and one personalized one...

:) i, too, like to see what changed... this is why i always look at the "svn up" logs... however, i do not currently have any method in place to abort the script after doing "svn up"... at that point, make clean has already been run and the tools must be built new... of course, one can always run "svn up" manually and then later run the update script ;)

yeah, i hadn't see that before... my understanding was that it started lazarus.exe and exited meaning that it shouldn't have still been in memory...

Just for record, a long time that I didn't need to run "make clean all" in Lazarus' sources.
Today I tried the technique:
1- I got the sources from SVN /branches/fixes_1_0/ 2- Run make clean all
3- I opened the new lazarus.exe using PCP params
4- Build the IDE using the Build command on menu

Worked perfectly. I new Lazarus (fixes_1_0/) started with all my configurations and components.
That's amazing!

Marcos Douglas

ummm... as i understand it, startlazarus starts lazarus and then if lazarus compiles a new version of itself (tools->build lazarus with profile X) which has the option to restart after the compile finishes set to true, then startlazarus catches this and starts lazarus back up... if startlazarus is terminated after starting lazarus then this functionality will be lost...

excellent!

"make clean" should be run before "svn up" so that it cleans old ppu and .o and such out... the "svn up" may move things and with these old ones laying around, they will cause problems until manually removed... this was pointed out some months back in one of the numerous threads covering/touching this topic...

BUT i note that your above appears to say that you started fresh with a new empty directory... in that case you are quite correct that "make clean" can't run because the files have not been downloaded yet... you could maybe do the following, though...

1- get the sources from SVN /branches/fixes_1_0/
2- Run make clean all
3- lazbuild --build-ide= --build-mode=
4. copy lazarus.new.exe lazarus.exe (i don't know why lazbuild doesn't, yet)

and then starting lazarus with your PCP parms should have you where you want to be... i think... i've not used PCP parms yet... but that is coming ;)

In another words, if I used lazbuild I had compile just one time. Is that you mean?

Marcos Douglas

yes... to a point in which direction i'm strongly headed toward...

1. "make all" includes compiling a default default lazarus.exe...
2. this is one of the things i was speaking with mattias about...
3. one can easily make only needed targets...
4. one needs to keep up with the makefile development for new or removed targets in this area...

an ignorant (meaning uneducated!) look at the Makefile in the lazarus root turns up the following on line 3910...

all: lazbuild lcl ideintf components tools ide starter

which i /think/ indicates that one could leave out the ide target like so...

make lazbuild lcl ideintf components tools starter

so a whole new svn install can go like this...

1- get the sources from SVN /branches/fixes_1_0/
2- make lazbuild lcl ideintf components tools starter 3- lazbuild --build-ide= --build-mode=
4. copy lazarus.new.exe lazarus.exe (i don't know why lazbuild doesn't, yet)

*OR*

1- get the sources from SVN /branches/fixes_1_0/
2- make lazbuild
3- lazbuild --build-ide= --build-mode=
4. copy lazarus.new.exe lazarus.exe (i don't know why lazbuild doesn't, yet)

whereas an update would be like so...

1- make clean
2- svn up
3- make lazbuild lcl ideintf components tools starter 4- lazbuild --build-ide= --build-mode=
5. copy lazarus.new.exe lazarus.exe (i don't know why lazbuild doesn't, yet)

*OR*

1- make clean
2- svn up
3- make lazbuild
4- lazbuild --build-ide= --build-mode=
5. copy lazarus.new.exe lazarus.exe (i don't know why lazbuild doesn't, yet)

i think that specifying all of the "lazbuild lcl ideintf components tools starter" targets is the safest way (based on what mattias has written to me) but again, this is based on (my) ignorance and what little i have been able to learn and piece together ;)

i'm fixing to test at least how the update goes... i can't test a new install on this box without loosing what i have now due to space constraints :?

sorry for possible rambling and disjointed text... i'm digging and researching while writing this...

waldo kitty wrote

On 4/5/2012 12:53, Marcos Douglas wrote: > In another words, if I used lazbuild I had compile just one time. Is > that you mean?

[...]

[trim]

yes! i can confirm that the update workflow (above) works without building a new ide first and then building another one with lazbuild... this definitely saves some time ;)

i will assume that the new load from svn workflow (also above) works without building an ide and then another with lazbuild... i will try to incorporate this into my copy of the wiki instruction scripts and see how it goes...

it is actually easier than i thought and i would never have gotten this far without the help and explanations from mattias and others who tossed in nuggets here and there...

Very nice.
I have one question:
If you use "make lcl ideintf components [...]" and after "lazbuild [...]" you probably compiled the same sources twice (first with Make and then using lazbuild), don't?

Marcos Douglas

Yes.
Keep in mind that this internal list may change at any time and without notification.

I fixed 4. lazbuild now creates lazarus.exe, not lazarus.new.exe.

Mattias

lazbuild checks how the sources were compiled. Compiling packages via make is like compiling without any special options. If you use no extra options, then lazbuild will not recompile the packages.

Mattias

Very good!
Thanks.

Marcos Douglas

ok... good to know...

also, does the order matter? if we build lazbuild first, do the others (lcl ideintf components tools and starter) get built again or does the make stuff see those that maybe had been built and bypass them somehow?

alright! i actually figured out why the "internal to lazarus" build method does this... it is because startlazarus will detect lazrus.new.exe and rename lazarus.exe to lazarus.old.exe and then rename lazarus.new.exe to lazarus.exe... say that three times fast! :lol:

but anyway, that caught me out the other day... i had a lazarus.new.exe left in the laz directory and startlazarus performed its majik and confused me for a minute until i realized what had happened ;)

sokath, his eyes open! ;)

that's what i thought... but wasn't sure exactly how marcos was looking at it... thus my previous question about moving lazbuild to the end or at least further down (to the right) of that make param list...

2012/4/5 waldo kitty :

How about simply using this:

make lazbuild lcl ideintf components tools starter useride

because useride is the target that is calling lazbuild, maybe even

make lazbuild tools starter useride

would be enough already? (didn't try it myself)

i did not know that make could/would call lazbuild... or maybe i did but do not recall it whilst wading thru the learning curve? ;)

make lazbuild tools starter useride would be enough already? (didn't try it myself)

interesting... i do not recall "useride" in what i was looking at in the makefile but... where do you see this listed as a make target?

2012/4/9 waldo kitty :

interesting... i do not recall "useride" in what i was looking at in the makefile but... where do you see this listed as a make target?

A few months ago I noticed a commit regarding this (I have the svn log in my rss reader) which made me curious because something like this was (almost) exactly what I was looking for all the time, then I looked into the makefile and saw it ;-)

It was started a few weeks ago.
Now it works.

You can now compile with

make clean lazbuild useride

Mattias

waldo kitty wrote

agreed... plus "we" do not know how many years the v1.0 of delphi was in development... we might guess based on TP/BP stuffs but "we" still do not know for sure... it can easily be for more years than FP/Laz has been in development ;)

Not really, this quote from a "history" article from Borland's Museum:

---
"Delphi" started out as a beta codename for a closely guarded skunkworks project at Borland: a next-generation visual development environment for Windows based on Borland's Object Pascal programming language. The codename hatched in mid 1993, after the development team had been through about 6 months of deep research, proof-of-concept exercises, and market analysis.
---

So Delphi was in development since late 1992. Since the first release was in 1995, we can infer that Delphi was at most three years in development before the first 1.0 release. Lazarus started in 1999 (and according to the history page in the wiki, it is based on an older 1998 project which itself is based on an even older project, although i'm not sure what exactly "based" here means) so it is over a decade in development and still no 1.0.

So if you think about it, if Borland worked on Delphi more than Lazarus, then they'd need to work on it before even Windows 1.0 was released :-P.

Kostas "Bad Sector" Michalopoulos

If you divide the development time span by the number of supported widget sets, OSes, CPU architecture etc. the period from the start of the project to 1.0 is pretty amazing :)

So if you think about it, if Borland worked on Delphi more than Lazarus, then they'd need to work on it before even Windows 1.0 was released :-P.

Lazarus should have released versions 2..7 and following, but the developers seem to think that a 1.0 version can be released only when all features of the latest Delphi release are implemented ;-)

This has been stopped by the release of Delphi XE2, whose new widgetset doesn't fit into the LCL. Perhaps a Lazarus 2 is already in preparation, compatible with XE2, and the work on 1.0 will be abandoned soon?

DoDi

i wonder why it is not listed in the "all" section, then?

i found it in ".PHONY" and then yes, there is a section header for it that does call lazbuild which builds the default ide... "default" as in which ever one has been saved as the initial one... on my system, this is "debug ide"... on yours it might be "optimized ide"... so my script builds all the necessary items and then invokes lazbuild for each of the known default ide... so as to give one a choice, any time, as to what they run for their ide... this should allow for testing between revisions... i just need to figure out how to get the revision number being compiled so that the exes can be named with it...

eg:
04/05/2012 16:05 130,631,688 lazarus_r36661-clean_up_build_all.exe 04/05/2012 15:50 76,245,358 lazarus_r36661-debug.exe 04/05/2012 15:56 93,860,444 lazarus_r36661-normal.exe 04/05/2012 16:00 13,431,404 lazarus_r36661-optimized.exe 04/09/2012 20:23 76,463,494 lazarus.exe

"all" is the default target.
A "make" should build a default IDE.

I'm curious. What are you testing with these 5 versions of the IDE?

Mattias

yes, it does...

nothing yet... the idea is to be able to draw from several revisions and see how one's own programs come out... it isn't necessarily that these "flavors" are being tested but to give those using my script the choice of which they want to use...

BTW: you found a bug... i thought i had made the change from copying lazarus.new.exe but i guess i didn't... my system halts for approval on certain items and in this case, it sat for a few days awaiting ACK of the new lazbuild starting up... there's supposed to be only 4 there... the 4 default ones... and lazarus.exe should be a copy of one of them... however, in the above case, lazarus.exe is a new debug one and none of the others were generated... interesting ~200K difference, though... the ones with the _rXXXXX in them are actually r36581 and the lazarus.exe is r36661... i should have noticed this when i was posting before :(

plus, someone asked a while back about the compiled size of the ide's exes during the time that the jvm stuff was being added... i had about 20 or so exes but no way to differentiate them without starting them and looking at help->about... at that time i was doing the build from inside the ide and then manually numbering like lazarus01.exe, lazarus02.exe and could then only attempt to rely on the filedate to get close to the revision...

i find it kinda interesting that "normal" is larger than "debug" yet "debug" has more details... i'm assuming that "clean up + build all" has no optimizations at all... i guess this should be seen in the build profiles...