[forwarded another copy to the list because of mailinglist was missing in recipients]

2012/10/8 Mattias Gaertner :

That's a lot of work and I'm glad they do it.

The problem is the Debian packages from Debian don't do it either!

They consist of many hundred lines of convoluted unmaintained(!) script that is trying to press every possible button the debian packaging system provides (except the new dh overrides which would simplify matters) (it has meta-packages and virtual packages and versioned packages, it is using update-alternatives for no reason (who wants to install two different ancient(!) versions of Lazarus simultaneously?)), it is ripping apart lazarus into many small pieces and introducing new bugs and damaging Lazarus' reputation and the only thing it is *NOT* doing is installing all needed files where they belong! It does not install mime types, it is trying to intstall a default config file that does not even exist anymore, when you start it for the first time it will complain about wrong paths and packages installed but no .lpk files found (probably because lazarus-ide fails to depend on lazarus-src which is *essential* for using the ide, why did they split it in the first place?), even a simple make install even in the current limited form would immediately give a better install than the debs from Debian.

I would rather not see any of these half-baked and broken Debian packages at all in any of the repositories so that no new user accidentally installs them and then immediately comes to the conclusion that Lazarus is completely broken and unusable because that is exactly what currently happens when one installs Lazarus from the Ubuntu software center.

I vote for dumping this broken and unmaintained packaging entirely and rewrite it from scratch in a much simpler way with only two packages, one containing everything needed for building from the command line with lazbuild and another package containing the ide, the source and all the rest that is needed to use the ide because this is the only logical and natural separation that would make sense. Everything going beyond that would be nonsense and wasted manpower.

If Lazarus and Pascal programming and Pascal units are by design incompatible with the way how Debian is organized or how its ancient bureaucratic policies blindly dictate and they cannot put such simple and working packages into their Repository then so be it! It doesn't matter! An alternative repository can be set up in one afternoon and Debian could no longer damage the reputation of Lazarus by providing ancient and broken packages.

2012/10/14 Bernd :

I guess this more something for the Debian bug tracker than the Lazarus mailing list, There you have a higher chance to get the intention of the people who can change it.

Vincent

Hi,
I install Lazarus from

Debian Repository
under Ubuntu and compyle new project without problem. But can't find debugger. I install Lazarus 1.0.2 from sf and compyle new project without problem. Without debugger they runs. Please tell me where I can find debugger under Ubuntu. Thanks!

-------- ?????????? ????? --------
??: Bernd
???????: [Lazarus] Fwd: Build-Depends: imagemagick ??: Lazarus mailing list
????????? ??: ??????, 2012, ???????? 14 04:52:26 EEST

[forwarded another copy to the list because of mailinglist was missing

in recipients]

2012/10/8 Mattias Gaertner >:

That's a lot of work and I'm glad they do it.

The problem is the Debian packages from Debian don't do it either!

They consist of many hundred lines of convoluted unmaintained(!)

script that is trying to press every possible button the debian

packaging system provides (except the new dh overrides which would

simplify matters) (it has meta-packages and virtual packages and

versioned packages, it is using update-alternatives for no reason (who

wants to install two different ancient(!) versions of Lazarus

simultaneously?)), it is ripping apart lazarus into many small pieces

and introducing new bugs and damaging Lazarus' reputation and the only

thing it is *NOT* doing is installing all needed files where they

belong! It does not install mime types, it is trying to intstall a

default config file that does not even exist anymore, when you start

it for the first time it will complain about wrong paths and packages

installed but no .lpk files found (probably because lazarus-ide fails

to depend on lazarus-src which is *essential* for using the ide, why

did they split it in the first place?), even a simple make install

even in the current limited form would immediately give a better

install than the debs from Debian.

I would rather not see any of these half-baked and broken Debian

packages at all in any of the repositories so that no new user

accidentally installs them and then immediately comes to the

conclusion that Lazarus is completely broken and unusable because that

is exactly what currently happens when one installs Lazarus from the

Ubuntu software center.

I vote for dumping this broken and unmaintained packaging entirely and

rewrite it from scratch in a much simpler way with only two packages,

one containing everything needed for building from the command line

with lazbuild and another package containing the ide, the source and

all the rest that is needed to use the ide because this is the only

logical and natural separation that would make sense. Everything going

beyond that would be nonsense and wasted manpower.

If Lazarus and Pascal programming and Pascal units are by design

incompatible with the way how Debian is organized or how its ancient

bureaucratic policies blindly dictate and they cannot put such simple

and working packages into their Repository then so be it! It doesn't

matter! An alternative repository can be set up in one afternoon and

Debian could no longer damage the reputation of Lazarus by providing

ancient and broken packages.

apt-get install gdb ?

on Mint, i must install gdb manually...

2012/10/15 Kamen Ketev

2012/10/15 Kamen Ketev :

I install Lazarus from Debian Repository under Ubuntu and compyle new project without problem.

is the 0.9.30 version from the Debian repositories better than the 0.9.30 from the Ubuntu repositories? The Ubuntu version is missing all .lpk files in the components directory and because of this refusing to start without errors, it is missing a dependency on fpc-source which must therefore be installed manually, it is constantly trying to save a config file /usr/lib/lazarus/0.9.30.2/JCFSettings.cfg which is of course not writable by user and if you finally get it running it will not compile anything - not even the empty default project - because it cannot find unit interfaces.

"is the 0.9.30 version from the Debian repositories better than the

0.9.30 from the Ubuntu repositories?"
I don't know. I am using USU, which I think is based on Ubuntu and using Ubuntu repositories.
Lazarus

0.9.30.2 was installed by default, compiles empty project. If don't use gdb or install manually like suggested in previously mail project run. I remove

Lazarus

0.9.30.2. Install fpc, fpc-src and Lazarus 1.0.2 from sf. Install gdb

as suggested in previously mail. Empty project runs without problem. I was trying to import test graphical project (digital clock) but visualization was only for circle. Arrows not shown. I think this is because I am new and can't transfer from win to linux. Is there a way to automatically compile from Windows to Linux?

-------- ?????????? ????? --------
??: Bernd
???????: Re: [Lazarus] Fwd: Build-Depends: imagemagick ??: Lazarus mailing list
????????? ??: ??????????, 2012, ???????? 15 15:57:21 EEST

2012/10/15 Kamen Ketev >:

I install Lazarus from Debian Repository under Ubuntu and compyle new project without problem.

is the 0.9.30 version from the Debian repositories better than the

0.9.30 from the Ubuntu repositories? The Ubuntu version is missing all

.lpk files in the components directory and because of this refusing to

start without errors, it is missing a dependency on fpc-source which

must therefore be installed manually, it is constantly trying to save

a config file /usr/lib/lazarus/0.9.30.2/JCFSettings.cfg which is of

course not writable by user and if you finally get it running it will

not compile anything - not even the empty default project - because it

cannot find unit interfaces.

2012/10/17 Kamen Ketev :

Arrows not shown. I think this is because I am new and can't transfer from win to linux. Is there a way to automatically compile from Windows to Linux?

Its more complicated to set up a working cross-compiler from windows to linux than the other way around, installing and using the cross compiler on linux is much simpler. But this will not help with the subtle differences that different LCL widgetsets are having, they are not intentional (some of them are bugs) but some subtle differences in behavior simply cannot be avoided, you will still have to test your UI on Windows and Linux separately.