Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 14.10.2015 20:24, Anthony Walter wrote:

Ondrej,

Fantastic! That's exactly what I (and maybe some others) were looking for.

When you check it in please reply with the revision number so I can 
svn diff to see only your changes. I'd be interested in reviewing 
them. Hopefully your addition can shed some light on how to modify 
CodeTools for the rest of us.


You are welcome to study and test my patch:

http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=22235

Ondrej

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Anthony Walter]

Great work Ondrej! I've tested your patch and updated the notes in Mantis
for that issue. I'll study the patch details soon.
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Bo Berglund wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:48:14 -0300, Flávio Etrusco
 wrote:


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:13:53 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:

$  time make clean bigide

I have never seen such a command before, does it print the time the
command following time takes to complete???
man time does not mention such a functionality...


time is a builtin command (integrated in bash) thus to obtain help use
'help time'.



Thanks, I thought it to be a version of date where the display would
only be the time... 
man time seemed to indicate that, but help time says otherwise. In

fact a very handy tool. Always learning new stuff... :)


time  is one of a number of commands that are implemented both as part 
of the most common shells (Bash, Dash etc.) and as standalone binaries. 
There's reasons for this, based on the fact that they're monitoring or 
changing the state of the shell itself.



I am going to rebuild the Lazarus bigide on my Raspberry Pi2 later
today and will use this command to get a good time for the process and
report back here.
I just have to first find out how to get rid of the erroneously done
installation using su...


Provided you've got the space you might want to rename it until you're 
happy the new build is OK.


$ sudo mv old_directory_name new_directory_name

Once you're happy you've got things right you can delete it

$ sudo rm -r directory_name

or even

$ sudo rm -rf directory_name

but that can be brutal if you get it wrong. I usually do something like 
this to create etc. a directory for Lazarus:


$ cd /usr/local/share
$ sudo mkdir lazarus
$ sudo chown markMLl:staff lazarus

After that you can fill the directory using svn or whatever and compile 
it, without needing root.


As discussed elsewhere, you need to sort out logging into the RPi as 
"yourself" rather than root, or you'll end up with a mix of file 
ownership which you'll periodically find yourself sorting out with 
something like


$ sudo chown -R markMLl:staff lazarus

or whatever.

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Bo Berglund wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:13:19 +, Mark Morgan Lloyd
 wrote:


$ sudo mv old_directory_name new_directory_name


I did:
sudo mv /usr/local/share/lazarus /usr/local/share/lazarus_old


$ sudo rm -r directory_name

or even

$ sudo rm -rf directory_name

What is the difference?


f

I think you've worked out things like  man rm  but at the risk of 
wandering too far off topic: it's the  force  option, which particularly 
if run by root can cause a lot of trouble.


--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:46:23 +0200
Marco van de Voort  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:39:11AM +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> > > I wrote about it in forum (thread "dead computer") and hoped somebody 
> > > would
> > > measure the time in a really fast machine. How fast are they nowadays?
> > 
> > For example i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz on Linux/Ubuntu 64bit:
> > 
> > fpc 2.6.4:
> > real1m2.630s
> > user0m58.592s
> > sys 0m3.556s
> > 
> > fpc 3.1.1:
> > real1m23.381s
> > user1m17.052s
> > sys 0m5.748s
> > 
> > fpc.cfg created by fpc's install.sh.
> 
> For further reference, I also have a i7-3770, and for trunk (3.1.1) on a SSD,
> FPC builds in about 55s. On Windows 1:10 or so when it is hot (been built
> before), 1:40 when not.

Thanks. 
My numbers were for "make bigide" of Lazarus.

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:13:19 +, Mark Morgan Lloyd
 wrote:

>$ sudo mv old_directory_name new_directory_name

I did:
sudo mv /usr/local/share/lazarus /usr/local/share/lazarus_old

>$ sudo rm -r directory_name
>
>or even
>
>$ sudo rm -rf directory_name
What is the difference?

>create etc. a directory for Lazarus:
>
>$ cd /usr/local/share
>$ sudo mkdir lazarus
>$ sudo chown markMLl:staff lazarus

>After that you can fill the directory using svn or whatever and compile 
>it, without needing root.

I already created a directory /home/pi/development where I checked out
lazarus trunk into subdir lazarus. So the sources are there.
In these discussions I have understood that lazarus can be handled
entirely within the home dir...
>
>As discussed elsewhere, you need to sort out logging into the RPi as 
>"yourself" rather than root
My problems earlier were again following the tutorial website where
everything was done after sudo su...
That part is entirely fixed now!  :)

 Lazarus has been compiling bigide 
~/development/lazarus $ time make bigide

Result:
real17m57.477s
user14m15.830s
sys 2m26.930s

My Rasberry Pi2 was set up with 1000GB swap and to boot into the
command line interface (to not waste memory) for the build operation
above.
I will now switch out of this thread and create a new one for
installation of Lazarus on a Raspberry Pi2 since I still have
problems.

-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:48:14 -0300, Flávio Etrusco
 wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:13:53 +0300, Juha Manninen
>>  wrote:
>>
>> $  time make clean bigide
>>
>> I have never seen such a command before, does it print the time the
>> command following time takes to complete???
>> man time does not mention such a functionality...
>>
>
>time is a builtin command (integrated in bash) thus to obtain help use
>'help time'.
>

Thanks, I thought it to be a version of date where the display would
only be the time... 
man time seemed to indicate that, but help time says otherwise. In
fact a very handy tool. Always learning new stuff... :)

I am going to rebuild the Lazarus bigide on my Raspberry Pi2 later
today and will use this command to get a good time for the process and
report back here.
I just have to first find out how to get rid of the erroneously done
installation using su...


-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marco van de Voort]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:39:11AM +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> > I wrote about it in forum (thread "dead computer") and hoped somebody would
> > measure the time in a really fast machine. How fast are they nowadays?
> 
> For example i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz on Linux/Ubuntu 64bit:
> 
> fpc 2.6.4:
> real1m2.630s
> user0m58.592s
> sys 0m3.556s
> 
> fpc 3.1.1:
> real1m23.381s
> user1m17.052s
> sys 0m5.748s
> 
> fpc.cfg created by fpc's install.sh.

For further reference, I also have a i7-3770, and for trunk (3.1.1) on a SSD,
FPC builds in about 55s. On Windows 1:10 or so when it is hot (been built
before), 1:40 when not.




--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 12.10.2015 20:19, Anthony Walter wrote:
I'll looked at CodeTools, attempted changes, and rapidly gave up after 
trying to work through all kinds of confusion.


Earlier this year I offered to try once again if only I could get a 
little help/tutelage but no follow up contact was made. The offer 
still stands. If the maintainer of CodeTools want some help, I'll be 
glad to do what I can but can we setup some time to chat (like on IRC) 
to help me get more familiar with however CodeTools is organized?


FYI, that you don't develop it as well (see attached screenshots). I 
have to clean the source first, though.


Ondrej
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Anthony Walter]

Ondrej,

Fantastic! That's exactly what I (and maybe some others) were looking for.

When you check it in please reply with the revision number so I can svn
diff to see only your changes. I'd be interested in reviewing them.
Hopefully your addition can shed some light on how to modify CodeTools for
the rest of us.
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:56:59 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:

>There is no need to install Lazarus when using (and occationally
>updating) the trunk version.
>Just compile it in the directory where sources are. Then run the
>binary from there.
>Sudo is not needed for anything.
>
Even if the original make was done as su?

I would imagine that doing so has the effect that the produced files
are owned by root rather than pi. But being not so Linux literate I
might be wrong...

In any case given that I have a 3.1.1 fpc compiler (also built and
installed as su) and have built the Lazarus IDE from trunk sources
using the commands shown, can I then just do a svn update and then
issue make as pi?


-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 14.10.2015 10:26, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
If you'd used  make bigide  there would have been extra packages built 
by default, giving you things like database and RTTI support.


Do you mean RTTI controls or
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Projects_for_the_Google_Summer_of_Code#Implement_support_for_the_extended_RTTI 
?


Ondrej

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:51:22 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:

>
>Bigide is used for Lazarus release versions. Why is it confusing?

Did I do it wrong?
This is what I did (following an online tutorial):

# cd /usr/local/lazarus
# svn co http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk source
# cd /usr/local/lazarus/source
# make all OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF
# make install OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF PREFIX=/usr/local

There is no mention of bigide here as far as I can see

Did I get the latest version (at that time)?
svn reported revision 50023

Notice that it was done as sudo su


-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Bo Berglund wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:51:22 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:


Bigide is used for Lazarus release versions. Why is it confusing?


Did I do it wrong?
This is what I did (following an online tutorial):

# cd /usr/local/lazarus
# svn co http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk source
# cd /usr/local/lazarus/source
# make all OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF
# make install OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF PREFIX=/usr/local

There is no mention of bigide here as far as I can see


If you'd used  make bigide  there would have been extra packages built 
by default, giving you things like database and RTTI support.



Did I get the latest version (at that time)?
svn reported revision 50023

Notice that it was done as sudo su


--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Sven Barth]

Am 14.10.2015 09:28 schrieb "Bo Berglund" :
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:51:22 +0300, Juha Manninen
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >Bigide is used for Lazarus release versions. Why is it confusing?
>
> Did I do it wrong?
> This is what I did (following an online tutorial):
>
> # cd /usr/local/lazarus
> # svn co http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk source
> # cd /usr/local/lazarus/source
> # make all OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF
> # make install OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF PREFIX=/usr/local

Note: you need OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF only for compiling the compiler, but not for
the IDE.

Regards,
Sven
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 14.10.2015 20:24, Anthony Walter wrote:

Ondrej,

Fantastic! That's exactly what I (and maybe some others) were looking for.

When you check it in please reply with the revision number so I can 
svn diff to see only your changes. I'd be interested in reviewing 
them. Hopefully your addition can shed some light on how to modify 
CodeTools for the rest of us.


I don't have commit rights. I'll send a patch to the bug report 
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=22235 and send a message to 
mailing list when I uploaded it.


Ondrej

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marcos Douglas]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Ondrej Pokorny  wrote:
> On 12.10.2015 20:19, Anthony Walter wrote:
>>
>> I'll looked at CodeTools, attempted changes, and rapidly gave up after
>> trying to work through all kinds of confusion.
>>
>> Earlier this year I offered to try once again if only I could get a little
>> help/tutelage but no follow up contact was made. The offer still stands. If
>> the maintainer of CodeTools want some help, I'll be glad to do what I can
>> but can we setup some time to chat (like on IRC) to help me get more
>> familiar with however CodeTools is organized?
>
>
> FYI, that you don't develop it as well (see attached screenshots). I have to
> clean the source first, though.

I was waiting this too. Thank you!

Best regards,
Marcos Douglas

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marc Santhoff]

On Mi, 2015-10-14 at 22:58 +0200, Bo Berglund wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:13:53 +0300, Juha Manninen
>  wrote:
> 
> $  time make clean bigide
> 
> I have never seen such a command before, does it print the time the
> command following time takes to complete???
> man time does not mention such a functionality...

Yes, it does. See here:

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=time=FreeBSD
+9.3-stable

Sorry, no Linux man page link at hand, but I think any Linux variant
will know that command.

-- 
Marc Santhoff 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:13:53 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:

$  time make clean bigide

I have never seen such a command before, does it print the time the
command following time takes to complete???
man time does not mention such a functionality...


-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
> 3) Build lazarus.
> How do I do this in the circumstances mentioned above?

If you have a native FPC installed then "make bigide" in the source
dir should be enough.
If you have some cross-compiler setup then I don't know.
You should also read the answers you already got.
For further assistance please open a new thread for "Lazarus in
Raspberry Pi2", this is going out of topic here.

"man time" works here.

Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:55:13 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
>> Even if the original make was done as su?
>
>No, then the generated files are owned by root and cannot be deleted
>by normal users.
>You should delete those files and switch to a normal user.
>Building any programs as root is unusual and not recommended.
>
>> In any case given that I have a 3.1.1 fpc compiler (also built and
>> installed as su) and have built the Lazarus IDE from trunk sources
>> using the commands shown, can I then just do a svn update and then
>> issue make as pi?
>
>Yes, after you have deleted the generated files which are owned by root.

I am probably ways off now with the installation I did from the
tutorial.
How to rectify?
1) Remove the already compiled version
How could I do that? It seems to exist in a this directory:
/usr/local/share/lazarus
which is listed as follows:
drwxr-xr-x 18 root root  4096 Oct 10 14:27 lazarus

When I did the build the checkout from svn went to:
/usr/local/lazarus/source

Then the following commands were executed inside that directory:
make all OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF
make install OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF PREFIX=/usr/local

And then the tutorial had this:
Remove sources:
---
cd /usr/local
rm -rf /usr/local/lazarus

2) Check out anew into the pi home directory:
cd ~/development
svn co http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk lazarus

3) Build lazarus.
How do I do this in the circumstances mentioned above?
Is this the way or does one use another command?

cd ~/development/lazarus
make all
or
make all OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF

In any case, where does the compiled program wind up?
(So I can start it?)

Or do I also run the second command:
make install OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF PREFIX=/usr/local

Sorry to be a nuisance, but I really want to get this right...

-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Flávio Etrusco]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:13:53 +0300, Juha Manninen
>  wrote:
>
> $  time make clean bigide
>
> I have never seen such a command before, does it print the time the
> command following time takes to complete???
> man time does not mention such a functionality...
>

time is a builtin command (integrated in bash) thus to obtain help use
'help time'.

Best regards,
-Flávio

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
> # cd /usr/local/lazarus
> # svn co http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk source
> # cd /usr/local/lazarus/source
> # make all OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF
> # make install OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF PREFIX=/usr/local
...
> Notice that it was done as sudo su

If you already have a native compiler then "make bigide" should be enough.

There is no need to install Lazarus when using (and occationally
updating) the trunk version.
Just compile it in the directory where sources are. Then run the
binary from there.
Sudo is not needed for anything.

Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
> Even if the original make was done as su?

No, then the generated files are owned by root and cannot be deleted
by normal users.
You should delete those files and switch to a normal user.
Building any programs as root is unusual and not recommended.

> In any case given that I have a 3.1.1 fpc compiler (also built and
> installed as su) and have built the Lazarus IDE from trunk sources
> using the commands shown, can I then just do a svn update and then
> issue make as pi?

Yes, after you have deleted the generated files which are owned by root.

Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marc Santhoff]

On Di, 2015-10-13 at 00:00 +0200, Bo Berglund wrote:
> Are you supposed to
> be able to build Lazarus (and FPC) as a non-priviliged user? 

Yes, if you install Lazarus into the users home directory.

I do this since years with fpc and Lazarus. It has the advantage of
being writable by the user. If I like to fiddle with Lazarus' code,
build the examples or some components need to be installed - all
possible without changing the OS installation.

-- 
Marc Santhoff 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:39:01 +0300
Juha Manninen  wrote:

>[...]
> One hour is accurate enough. My Beebox does "make bigide" in about 4
> minutes.
> I wrote about it in forum (thread "dead computer") and hoped somebody would
> measure the time in a really fast machine. How fast are they nowadays?

For example i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz on Linux/Ubuntu 64bit:

fpc 2.6.4:
real1m2.630s
user0m58.592s
sys 0m3.556s

fpc 3.1.1:
real1m23.381s
user1m17.052s
sys 0m5.748s

fpc.cfg created by fpc's install.sh.

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015, Bo Berglund  wrote:

>
> >Just measured it:
> >From the Menu/Programming/Lazarus click to when Lazarus is on the
> screen with the last project loaded: 7 s
>

Not bad.


I would say that it took upwards of an hour to do the make. But I went
> out for coffee during the make operation, I should really have put it
> into a shelscript with a command to save a timestamp into a file at
> the start and end of the operation.
> Will do so the next time around.
>
> But that might perhaps not be what you asked?


One hour is accurate enough. My Beebox does "make bigide" in about 4
minutes.
I wrote about it in forum (thread "dead computer") and hoped somebody would
measure the time in a really fast machine. How fast are they nowadays?



> Oh, I see now that you invoke a make not as root! Are you supposed to
> be able to build Lazarus (and FPC) as a non-priviliged user?
>

I build and run Lazarus in the local SVN repo directory as a normal user.

Juha
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Mattias Gaertner
 wrote:
> For example i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz on Linux/Ubuntu 64bit:
>
> fpc 2.6.4:
> real1m2.630s
> user0m58.592s
> sys 0m3.556s
>
> fpc 3.1.1:
> real1m23.381s
> user1m17.052s
> sys 0m5.748s

Strange, FPC 3.1.1 is slower. Maybe the new additions in trunk have
caused it. In earlier tests I remember they were about equal.
My Beebox test was with FPC 3.0RC1. Beebox is maybe about 3 times
slower than i7. Not bad for a small fanless gadget! It is like the
high-end machines were just few years ago.

This gadget is still not for sale in many places. I got mine from
Amazon, Germany :
 
http://www.amazon.de/Asrock-Desktop-PC-Celeron-Betriebssystem-schwarz/dp/B0104LW7AU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8=1444727010=8-1=beebox

Regards,
Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM,   wrote:
> what do you call "really fast"??

The fastest PC available today.

> i might be able to try this on my 8-core 4Ghz box...

Yes please!

> the only other thing is that i don't use bigide at this time...
> it was too confusing for me while trying to learn the interface...

Bigide is used for Lazarus release versions. Why is it confusing?

Regards,
Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marc Santhoff]

On Di, 2015-10-13 at 10:39 +0300, Juha Manninen wrote:

> I wrote about it in forum (thread "dead computer") and hoped somebody would
> measure the time in a really fast machine. How fast are they nowadays?

You only want a figure, the big picture?

Making target "bigide" is not completely comparable, it depends on what
additional components are installed. And if the disk is a rotating one
or an SSD. And the moons phase, me thinks ... ;)

 > dmesg|grep -i cpu
CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 975 Processor (3612.05-MHz K8-class CPU)
FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs

OK,not really fast and a bit dated, but enough for me. ;)
Since "gmake -j4" failed I'm posting only one test:

> gmake clean
> time gmake bigide
135.043u 10.460s 2:39.86 91.0%  2541+1181k 1059+11804io 74pf+0w
> gmake clean
> time gmake bigide
135.264u 10.245s 2:37.18 92.5%  2542+1182k 0+11803io 0pf+0w

Files are stored on a rotating disc.
Two and a half minutes is not enough for a coffee break.

-- 
Marc Santhoff 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Anthony Walter]

It's not that hard to build new Lazarus from trunk sources off your home
folders ($HOME/development for example). Assuming you have svn, build
tools, and your choice of compiler in the path then ...

If you don't have Lazarus from svn:

svn co http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk lazarus
cd lazarus

Once you have Lazarus with an svn folder:

# update to the latest revision
svn update
make all
# optionally build in your favorite packages. on windows replace / with \
./lazbuild ./components/anchordocking/design/anchordockingdsgn.lpk
make useride

Then run:

./startlazarus
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[wkitty42]

On 10/13/2015 03:39 AM, Juha Manninen wrote:

One hour is accurate enough. My Beebox does "make bigide" in about 4
minutes. I wrote about it in forum (thread "dead computer") and hoped
somebody would measure the time in a really fast machine. How fast are they
nowadays?


what do you call "really fast"?? i might be able to try this on my 8-core 4Ghz 
box... i'm not sure because the current installation was done with fpcup and i'm 
not sure of its status so that i can update this installation further... the 
only other thing is that i don't use bigide at this time... it was too confusing 
for me while trying to learn the interface... so i started off with the basics 
and then added packages as i needed...



I build and run Lazarus in the local SVN repo directory as a normal user.


i do the same here as well as on my sole remaining winwhatever box which is 
scripted for updated using a .bat file i wrote before fpcup came on the scene...


--
 NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
   *Please keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless
   private contact is specifically requested and granted.

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marc Santhoff]

On Di, 2015-10-13 at 18:07 +0300, Juha Manninen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Marc Santhoff  wrote:
> > You only want a figure, the big picture?
> 
> Yes, basically.
> 
> > Making target "bigide" is not completely comparable, it depends on what
> > additional components are installed.
> 
> No, "bigide" has a fixed set of components.

Hmm, but it does build the components I have installed as an extra to
"naked" Lazarus. So it does more work than a vanilla installation?

> > And if the disk is a rotating one or an SSD. And the moons phase, me thinks 
> > ... ;)
> 
> SSD is a valid way to speed up a computer.
> Moon phase clearly was the cause for some nasty bugs which I could not
> solve, but "make bigide" timing can be reproduced quite accurately
> with the same compiler settings.

Compiler settings are unchanged from the installation.

> >  > dmesg|grep -i cpu
> > CPU: AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 975 Processor (3612.05-MHz K8-class CPU)
> > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs
> 
> 3,6 GHz. Is it the Black Edition (Deneb)?

I had no idea, but a search for the invoice said: yes, it is.

> > OK,not really fast and a bit dated, but enough for me. ;)
> > Since "gmake -j4" failed I'm posting only one test:
> >
> >> gmake clean
> >> time gmake bigide
> > 135.043u 10.460s 2:39.86 91.0%  2541+1181k 1059+11804io 74pf+0w
> >> gmake clean
> >> time gmake bigide
> > 135.264u 10.245s 2:37.18 92.5%  2542+1182k 0+11803io 0pf+0w
> >
> > Files are stored on a rotating disc.
> > Two and a half minutes is not enough for a coffee break.
> 
> Not bad. Still a lot faster than Beebox.

Need it for CAD, simulations and the like. But the Beebox looks good for
smaller servers and media boxes. And it's beautiful to some extent.

But the first run was Lazarus 1.4.2. Trying again using version 1.4.4
and including gmake clean:

> time gmake clean bigide
135.607u 11.301s 2:39.85 91.8%  2513+1182k 56+17961io 0pf+0w

> gmake clean
> time gmake bigide
135.717u 10.049s 2:37.20 92.7%  2537+1180k 37+11886io 0pf+0w

No big difference. For fun another run on a SSD:

> time gmake clean bigide
135.293u 9.968s 2:26.14 99.3%   2526+1184k 23+5787io 37pf+0w

Helps a bit.

I'd like to see the times for RPi and RPi2 ... but on those devices the
storage media playes a role even bigger, some sd-cards are awfully slow.

> Yet, the processing power / electric power ratio is quite amazing in
> Celeron N3000. Its TDP is 4W.

That's the only thing not so nice, but using power management functions
it's ok, having enough power when needed.

-- 
Marc Santhoff 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Travis Ayres]

I hope we see more books detailing Lazarus and Freepascal, rather than more
advanced features. New features are great but really getting the word out
is necessary - I've had people laugh when I say I program in object Pascal
because I like it better than C++, and others say it's a dead language.
It's really a shame because Lazarus\fpc are so good!
On Oct 13, 2015 10:47 AM,  wrote:

> On 10/13/2015 09:51 AM, Juha Manninen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM,   wrote:
>>
>>> what do you call "really fast"??
>>>
>>
>> The fastest PC available today.
>>
>> i might be able to try this on my 8-core 4Ghz box...
>>>
>>
>> Yes please!
>>
>
> let me see what i can do...
>
> [time passes]
>
> i get as far as this...
>
> /bin/rm -f fpcmade.x86_64-linux Package.fpc ./ppas.sh script.res link.res
> /bin/rm -f *.s *_ppas.sh
> make[1]: Leaving directory
> `/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/components/chmhelp/lhelp'
> make -C packager/registration
> make[1]: Entering directory
> `/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/packager/registration'
> /bin/rm -f ../units/x86_64-linux/fcllaz.ppu
> /home/wkitty42/development/fpc/bin/x86_64-linux/ppcx64 -MObjFPC -Scghi -O1
> -g -gl -l -vewnhibq -Fu. -FE. -FU../units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64
> fcllaz.pas
> Free Pascal Compiler version 3.1.1 [2015/06/13] for x86_64
> Copyright (c) 1993-2015 by Florian Klaempfl and others
> (1002) Target OS: Linux for x86-64
> (3104) Compiling fcllaz.pas
> Fatal: (10022) Can't find unit system used by fcllaz
> Fatal: (1018) Compilation aborted
> make[1]: *** [fcllaz.ppu] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory
> `/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/packager/registration'
> make: *** [registration] Error 2
>
> real0m4.228s
> user0m0.819s
> sys 0m1.352s
>
>
> i don't know why... everything is in a tree under ~/development where
> fpcup placed it... i've never installed fpc or lazarus using anything other
> than fpcup and bootstrapping it from the raw... there is
> ~/development/fcpbootstrap/x86_64-linux-ppcx64 which turns out to be fpc
> 2.6.2 but i don't know how to tell your "time make clean bigide" to use it
> :(
>
> the only other thing is that i don't use bigide at this time...
>>> it was too confusing for me while trying to learn the interface...
>>>
>>
>> Bigide is used for Lazarus release versions. Why is it confusing?
>>
>
> way too many options to drag and drop on a form... i do not come from
> delphi or any other gui coding environment so i don't know anything about
> them... trying to find one being looked for was like hunting a needle in a
> haystack...
>
> the last time i used any sort of RAD it was for relatively small programs
> in Foxbase or dBase III and IV... there was a RAD template system thing
> that we used... once we got the forms laid out the way we wanted and
> generated the basic code to access, edit and delete the data, we then
> rewrote the majority of the code so much adding to and refining the
> existing code that we could not use the template thing any more to adjust
> the forms... from then on, it was like we had never used a RAD at all...
>
> --
>  NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
>*Please keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless
>private contact is specifically requested and granted.
>
> --
> ___
> Lazarus mailing list
> Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
> http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
>
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Marc Santhoff  wrote:
>> Yet, the processing power / electric power ratio is quite amazing in
>> Celeron N3000. Its TDP is 4W.
>
> That's the only thing not so nice, but using power management functions
> it's ok, having enough power when needed.

Why is it not nice? It enables a fanless passively cooled design.
IMO it is great!

Your CPU has TDP 125W. It needs a big power supply and efficient cooling.

Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:56:15 +0200
Marc Santhoff  wrote:

>[...]
> > No, "bigide" has a fixed set of components.
> 
> Hmm, but it does build the components I have installed as an extra to
> "naked" Lazarus. So it does more work than a vanilla installation?

A "naked" Lazarus is built with "make all".
"make bigide" contains a lot of packages. Both are fixed sets.

"make useride" calls "lazbuild --buildide" which builds your own set
of packages.

 
>[...]
> But the first run was Lazarus 1.4.2. Trying again using version 1.4.4
> and including gmake clean:
> 
> > time gmake clean bigide
> 135.607u 11.301s 2:39.85 91.8%  2513+1182k 56+17961io 0pf+0w
> 
> > gmake clean
> > time gmake bigide
> 135.717u 10.049s 2:37.20 92.7%  2537+1180k 37+11886io 0pf+0w

I forgot to mention. My times were for 1.5.
 
>[...]

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marc Santhoff]

On Di, 2015-10-13 at 18:05 +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:56:15 +0200
> Marc Santhoff  wrote:
> 
> >[...]
> > > No, "bigide" has a fixed set of components.
> > 
> > Hmm, but it does build the components I have installed as an extra to
> > "naked" Lazarus. So it does more work than a vanilla installation?
> 
> A "naked" Lazarus is built with "make all".
> "make bigide" contains a lot of packages. Both are fixed sets.
> 
> "make useride" calls "lazbuild --buildide" which builds your own set
> of packages.

You're right, some development packages I installed temporarily are
gone. I stumbled on RTTI, but it seems to be included in the standard
set.
 
> >[...]
> > But the first run was Lazarus 1.4.2. Trying again using version 1.4.4
> > and including gmake clean:
> > 
> > > time gmake clean bigide
> > 135.607u 11.301s 2:39.85 91.8%  2513+1182k 56+17961io 0pf+0w
> > 
> > > gmake clean
> > > time gmake bigide
> > 135.717u 10.049s 2:37.20 92.7%  2537+1180k 37+11886io 0pf+0w
> 
> I forgot to mention. My times were for 1.5.

Which svn revision would check out 1.5?

-- 
Marc Santhoff 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[wkitty42]

On 10/13/2015 09:51 AM, Juha Manninen wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM,   wrote:

what do you call "really fast"??


The fastest PC available today.


i might be able to try this on my 8-core 4Ghz box...


Yes please!


let me see what i can do...

[time passes]

i get as far as this...

/bin/rm -f fpcmade.x86_64-linux Package.fpc ./ppas.sh script.res link.res
/bin/rm -f *.s *_ppas.sh
make[1]: Leaving directory 
`/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/components/chmhelp/lhelp'

make -C packager/registration
make[1]: Entering directory 
`/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/packager/registration'

/bin/rm -f ../units/x86_64-linux/fcllaz.ppu
/home/wkitty42/development/fpc/bin/x86_64-linux/ppcx64 -MObjFPC -Scghi -O1 -g 
-gl -l -vewnhibq -Fu. -FE. -FU../units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64 fcllaz.pas

Free Pascal Compiler version 3.1.1 [2015/06/13] for x86_64
Copyright (c) 1993-2015 by Florian Klaempfl and others
(1002) Target OS: Linux for x86-64
(3104) Compiling fcllaz.pas
Fatal: (10022) Can't find unit system used by fcllaz
Fatal: (1018) Compilation aborted
make[1]: *** [fcllaz.ppu] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory 
`/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/packager/registration'

make: *** [registration] Error 2

real0m4.228s
user0m0.819s
sys 0m1.352s


i don't know why... everything is in a tree under ~/development where fpcup 
placed it... i've never installed fpc or lazarus using anything other than fpcup 
and bootstrapping it from the raw... there is 
~/development/fcpbootstrap/x86_64-linux-ppcx64 which turns out to be fpc 2.6.2 
but i don't know how to tell your "time make clean bigide" to use it :(



the only other thing is that i don't use bigide at this time...
it was too confusing for me while trying to learn the interface...


Bigide is used for Lazarus release versions. Why is it confusing?


way too many options to drag and drop on a form... i do not come from delphi or 
any other gui coding environment so i don't know anything about them... trying 
to find one being looked for was like hunting a needle in a haystack...


the last time i used any sort of RAD it was for relatively small programs in 
Foxbase or dBase III and IV... there was a RAD template system thing that we 
used... once we got the forms laid out the way we wanted and generated the basic 
code to access, edit and delete the data, we then rewrote the majority of the 
code so much adding to and refining the existing code that we could not use the 
template thing any more to adjust the forms... from then on, it was like we had 
never used a RAD at all...


--
 NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
   *Please keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless
   private contact is specifically requested and granted.

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:25:58 +0200
Marc Santhoff  wrote:

>[...]
> Which svn revision would check out 1.5?

If you mean the URL:
http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Salvatore Coppola]

An easy way to got apk for Android as Sam Herzog said "able to generate a
valid android package (.apk) by just pressing F9"

2015-10-13 19:50 GMT+02:00 Travis Ayres :

> I hope we see more books detailing Lazarus and Freepascal, rather than
> more advanced features. New features are great but really getting the word
> out is necessary - I've had people laugh when I say I program in object
> Pascal because I like it better than C++, and others say it's a dead
> language. It's really a shame because Lazarus\fpc are so good!
> On Oct 13, 2015 10:47 AM,  wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2015 09:51 AM, Juha Manninen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM,   wrote:
>>>
 what do you call "really fast"??

>>>
>>> The fastest PC available today.
>>>
>>> i might be able to try this on my 8-core 4Ghz box...

>>>
>>> Yes please!
>>>
>>
>> let me see what i can do...
>>
>> [time passes]
>>
>> i get as far as this...
>>
>> /bin/rm -f fpcmade.x86_64-linux Package.fpc ./ppas.sh script.res link.res
>> /bin/rm -f *.s *_ppas.sh
>> make[1]: Leaving directory
>> `/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/components/chmhelp/lhelp'
>> make -C packager/registration
>> make[1]: Entering directory
>> `/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/packager/registration'
>> /bin/rm -f ../units/x86_64-linux/fcllaz.ppu
>> /home/wkitty42/development/fpc/bin/x86_64-linux/ppcx64 -MObjFPC -Scghi
>> -O1 -g -gl -l -vewnhibq -Fu. -FE. -FU../units/x86_64-linux -Cg -dx86_64
>> fcllaz.pas
>> Free Pascal Compiler version 3.1.1 [2015/06/13] for x86_64
>> Copyright (c) 1993-2015 by Florian Klaempfl and others
>> (1002) Target OS: Linux for x86-64
>> (3104) Compiling fcllaz.pas
>> Fatal: (10022) Can't find unit system used by fcllaz
>> Fatal: (1018) Compilation aborted
>> make[1]: *** [fcllaz.ppu] Error 1
>> make[1]: Leaving directory
>> `/home/wkitty42/development/lazarus/packager/registration'
>> make: *** [registration] Error 2
>>
>> real0m4.228s
>> user0m0.819s
>> sys 0m1.352s
>>
>>
>> i don't know why... everything is in a tree under ~/development where
>> fpcup placed it... i've never installed fpc or lazarus using anything other
>> than fpcup and bootstrapping it from the raw... there is
>> ~/development/fcpbootstrap/x86_64-linux-ppcx64 which turns out to be fpc
>> 2.6.2 but i don't know how to tell your "time make clean bigide" to use it
>> :(
>>
>> the only other thing is that i don't use bigide at this time...
 it was too confusing for me while trying to learn the interface...

>>>
>>> Bigide is used for Lazarus release versions. Why is it confusing?
>>>
>>
>> way too many options to drag and drop on a form... i do not come from
>> delphi or any other gui coding environment so i don't know anything about
>> them... trying to find one being looked for was like hunting a needle in a
>> haystack...
>>
>> the last time i used any sort of RAD it was for relatively small programs
>> in Foxbase or dBase III and IV... there was a RAD template system thing
>> that we used... once we got the forms laid out the way we wanted and
>> generated the basic code to access, edit and delete the data, we then
>> rewrote the majority of the code so much adding to and refining the
>> existing code that we could not use the template thing any more to adjust
>> the forms... from then on, it was like we had never used a RAD at all...
>>
>> --
>>  NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
>>*Please keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless
>>private contact is specifically requested and granted.
>>
>> --
>> ___
>> Lazarus mailing list
>> Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
>> http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
>>
>
> --
> ___
> Lazarus mailing list
> Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
> http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
>
>
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marc Santhoff]

On Di, 2015-10-13 at 20:02 +0300, Juha Manninen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Marc Santhoff  wrote:
> >> Yet, the processing power / electric power ratio is quite amazing in
> >> Celeron N3000. Its TDP is 4W.
> >
> > That's the only thing not so nice, but using power management functions
> > it's ok, having enough power when needed.
> 
> Why is it not nice? 

Confusion. I was answering to your remark while thinking about my cpu.

> It enables a fanless passively cooled design.
> IMO it is great!

It is.

> Your CPU has TDP 125W. It needs a big power supply and efficient cooling.

_That's_ not so nice.

-- 
Marc Santhoff 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marc Santhoff]

On Di, 2015-10-13 at 18:38 +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:25:58 +0200
> Marc Santhoff  wrote:
> 
> >[...]
> > Which svn revision would check out 1.5?
> 
> If you mean the URL:
> http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk

It's on trunk, ok.

-- 
Marc Santhoff 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Sven Barth]

Am 13.10.2015 00:00 schrieb "Bo Berglund" :
> Oh, I see now that you invoke a make not as root! Are you supposed to
> be able to build Lazarus (and FPC) as a non-priviliged user?

Yes. Normally you need root only to do a "make install" into a system
directory.

Regards,
Sven
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bart]

On 10/12/15, Mattias Gaertner  wrote:

> And you are right, that FPC 3 is a big leap, especially for UTF-8
> applications. Some projects and packages need to check a lot of strings.
> If you see a Lazarus release as an unity of IDE and compiler, then the
> string change alone would require a 2.0. If you only see Lazarus, the
> amount of incompatibilities are far less than 1.2 to 1.4.

Well, I would vote for 2.0 for the next stable release that comes with
the 3.0 compiler.
We can then get rid of all code that is win9x compatible etc.
This will cleanup the LCL a bit.
Especially if we also then decide that 2.0 will NOT support the fpc
2.6 branch (the cp-aware strings and "utf8 in lcl" tend to give plenty
of ifdef-ed code).

Just my 2 cents.

Bart

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Anthony Walter]

A small thing, but I would like it if the CodeTools in 2.0 worked with
units that have dotted namespaces.

Right now if you type "use CompanyName." and press CTRL+SPACE you don't get
a code completion list of units which start with "CompanyName."
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Vincenzo Campanella]

Il 12.10.2015 17:58, Bart ha scritto:

Well, I would vote for 2.0 for the next stable release that comes with
the 3.0 compiler.
We can then get rid of all code that is win9x compatible etc.
This will cleanup the LCL a bit.
Especially if we also then decide that 2.0 will NOT support the fpc
2.6 branch (the cp-aware strings and "utf8 in lcl" tend to give plenty
of ifdef-ed code).

Just my 2 cents.



+2 (cents)... :)

---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

[Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[JuuS]

Hi,

Lazarus has had the number schemes 0.xxx to now of 1.4.xx

Before falling asleep it passed through my mind about a lazarus 2.xx and...

...I thought what could it be? Lazarus is already so good and so feature
filled that I struggled to understand what could possibly be in or
justify a Lazarus 2.xx

Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?

Julius

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:03:57 +0200
JuuS  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Lazarus has had the number schemes 0.xxx to now of 1.4.xx
> 
> Before falling asleep it passed through my mind about a lazarus 2.xx and...
> 
> ...I thought what could it be? Lazarus is already so good and so feature
> filled that I struggled to understand what could possibly be in or
> justify a Lazarus 2.xx
> 
> Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?

Probably many incompatibilities (more than usual).

For example project groups, UTF-8/16 strings, dynamic packages deserve
some changes that will break old code.

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Tony Whyman]

This could be a good moment for someone to bring the Wiki up-to-date 
(version 0.9.31 was a little while ago now). Also, the wiki page doesn't 
give any policy rules for interpreting major, minor and patch(?) numbers.


Interesting, if you took a pretty common view in that:

- patch numbers are used for bug fix releases
- minor numbers are changed for backwards but not forwards compatible 
changes (i.e. a 1.2.x app should still work under 1.4.x but the other 
way around is not true), and

- major changes are used when existing apps may be broken,

then Lazarus 2.0.x is only just around the corner. That's because as 
soon as FPC 3 becomes the required compiler there will be backwards 
compatibility issues (e.g. the TBookmark type changes break any app that 
uses it).


Tony Whyman
MWA

http://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering

On 12/10/15 13:03, JuuS wrote:

Hi,

Lazarus has had the number schemes 0.xxx to now of 1.4.xx

Before falling asleep it passed through my mind about a lazarus 2.xx and...

...I thought what could it be? Lazarus is already so good and so feature
filled that I struggled to understand what could possibly be in or
justify a Lazarus 2.xx

Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?

Julius

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus



--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:03 PM, JuuS  wrote:
> Lazarus has had the number schemes 0.xxx to now of 1.4.xx
>
> Before falling asleep it passed through my mind about a lazarus 2.xx and...
>
> ...I thought what could it be? Lazarus is already so good and so feature
> filled that I struggled to understand what could possibly be in or
> justify a Lazarus 2.xx
>
> Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?

Thanks for the positive thinking! Usually people complain how buggy
Lazarus is and how it still misses crucial features.
Did you dream about Lazarus 2.0 after falling asleep? How did it look like? :)

The development version (trunk) already has new features like
configurable IDE Coolbar and configurable desktops + many other
improvements. They will surely be in next release.
Also Projects Groups will be there most likely.
Improved Unicode support breaks some code and justifies the big version change.

Not sure what other features will be in time, but there surely is a
lot to improve!

Dynamic packages (mentioned by others).
Proper Right-To-Left support (mentioned by others).
Integrated Pascal debugger (fpdebug) to get rid of GDB and its bugs +
limitations.
A way to search and install online packages from global repositories.
Support more widgetsets.
Easier cross-compilation.
Fix the > 1700 open bug reports.
Better documentation.
Etc... etc...

Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Sven Barth]

Am 12.10.2015 14:04 schrieb "JuuS" :
>
> Hi,
>
> Lazarus has had the number schemes 0.xxx to now of 1.4.xx
>
> Before falling asleep it passed through my mind about a lazarus 2.xx
and...
>
> ...I thought what could it be? Lazarus is already so good and so feature
> filled that I struggled to understand what could possibly be in or
> justify a Lazarus 2.xx
>
> Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?

Lazarus with support for dynamic packages? (once FPC supports them which
isn't that far in the future anymore ;) )

Regards,
Sven
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Jamal Gabra]

I can think of a version that supports Right-To-Left, out of the box. Not
necessarily Laz. 2 though :)

Right now FlipChildren() must be used. It works, but not on all the
controls. For instance it does not work over the DateTimePicker very well,
to my knowledge/experience, I would say.

Probably in version 2, "BiDiMode:= bdRightToLeft;" would be enough to do
the trick.

I offered to help in this regard before, but I got lost between been busy
and try to find where to start.

Jamal

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:03 PM, JuuS  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Lazarus has had the number schemes 0.xxx to now of 1.4.xx
>
> Before falling asleep it passed through my mind about a lazarus 2.xx and...
>
> ...I thought what could it be? Lazarus is already so good and so feature
> filled that I struggled to understand what could possibly be in or
> justify a Lazarus 2.xx
>
> Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?
>
> Julius
>
> --
> ___
> Lazarus mailing list
> Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
> http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
>



-- 
Jamal
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Fabio Luis Girardi]

>
> Lazarus with support for dynamic packages? (once FPC supports them which
> isn't that far in the future anymore ;) )
>

+1


-- 
The best regards,

Fabio Luis Girardi
PascalSCADA Project
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pascalscada
http://www.pascalscada.com
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Tony Whyman]

Sorry forgot to add the link

http://wiki.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering

On 12/10/15 14:07, Tony Whyman wrote:

This could be a good moment for someone to bring the Wiki up-to-date



--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

On 2015-10-12 13:03, JuuS wrote:
> Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?

Mind control Think of the program, and Lazarus writes it. ;-)

Regards,
  - Graeme -

-- 
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:07:10 +0100
Tony Whyman  wrote:

> This could be a good moment for someone to bring the Wiki up-to-date 
> (version 0.9.31 was a little while ago now). Also, the wiki page doesn't 
> give any policy rules for interpreting major, minor and patch(?) numbers.

The Lazarus patches are in the svn revision numbers.

The version scheme is major, minor, release.
The forth number (patch) is only used for release candidates and
special OS releases.

 
> Interesting, if you took a pretty common view in that:
> 
> - patch numbers are used for bug fix releases

s/patch/release/

> - minor numbers are changed for backwards but not forwards compatible 
> changes (i.e. a 1.2.x app should still work under 1.4.x but the other 
> way around is not true), and
> - major changes are used when existing apps may be broken,

Well, even bugfix releases may break apps, although it is unlikely.
And even major versions try to be backwards compatible. For example the
IDE can read old project files. When something is not backwards
compatible it is listed as incompatibility.
Every application is affected differently by the incompatibilities, so
the distinction in major and minor numbers is just the personal
decision of the Lazarus developers.

 
> then Lazarus 2.0.x is only just around the corner. That's because as 
> soon as FPC 3 becomes the required compiler there will be backwards 
> compatibility issues (e.g. the TBookmark type changes break any app that 
> uses it).

A "minor" change from 1.4 to 1.6 usually contains similar
incompatibilities like TBookmark.
And you are right, that FPC 3 is a big leap, especially for UTF-8
applications. Some projects and packages need to check a lot of strings.
If you see a Lazarus release as an unity of IDE and compiler, then the
string change alone would require a 2.0. If you only see Lazarus, the
amount of incompatibilities are far less than 1.2 to 1.4.


Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[JuuS]

On 10/12/2015 03:53 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 2015-10-12 13:03, JuuS wrote:
>> Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?
> 
> Mind control Think of the program, and Lazarus writes it. ;-)
> 
> Regards,
>   - Graeme -
> 

All good replies thank you! But...

...This is the best one!

Anyway, yes I see. Major reorganization(s) would certainly justify a 2.

Standing outside the developer group these (thanks all) types of needs
were something I couldn't see.

So anyway what about a 3.xx :) just kidding!

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Leonardo M . Ramé]

El 12/10/15 a las 09:03, JuuS escribió:

Hi,

Lazarus has had the number schemes 0.xxx to now of 1.4.xx

Before falling asleep it passed through my mind about a lazarus 2.xx and...

...I thought what could it be? Lazarus is already so good and so feature
filled that I struggled to understand what could possibly be in or
justify a Lazarus 2.xx

Any thoughts from anyone what a Laz 2 would be?

Julius



An api for command line .lpi handling, I user "lazbuild -B 
myproject.lpi" for command line compiling, and I wonder if there's 
something similar for project creation, package inclusion, etc.




--
Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blogspot.com

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 12.10.2015 18:03, Anthony Walter wrote:
A small thing, but I would like it if the CodeTools in 2.0 worked with 
units that have dotted namespaces.


Right now if you type "use CompanyName." and press CTRL+SPACE you 
don't get a code completion list of units which start with "CompanyName."


I was investigating this and I have to say it is everything else than 
easy to get all parts of codetools working with unit scopes and dotted 
names. But I am sure Mattias will apply your patch if you create one!


Ondrej

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:54:02 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:

>The development version (trunk) already has new features like
>configurable IDE Coolbar and configurable desktops + many other
>improvements. They will surely be in next release.

Is that version 1.5?
This is what I got when I followed an installation guide for putting
FPC/Lazarus on a Raspberry Pi2 (ARM Cortex 7).
Help/About says FPC 3.1.1 and Lazarus 1.5 (SVN 50023)

If this is the beeding edge should I worry???


-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Anthony Walter]

I'll looked at CodeTools, attempted changes, and rapidly gave up after
trying to work through all kinds of confusion.

Earlier this year I offered to try once again if only I could get a little
help/tutelage but no follow up contact was made. The offer still stands. If
the maintainer of CodeTools want some help, I'll be glad to do what I can
but can we setup some time to chat (like on IRC) to help me get more
familiar with however CodeTools is organized?
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 12.10.2015 20:19, Anthony Walter wrote:
I'll looked at CodeTools, attempted changes, and rapidly gave up after 
trying to work through all kinds of confusion.


Just don't give up, otherwise Lazarus won't move forward!

Earlier this year I offered to try once again if only I could get a 
little help/tutelage but no follow up contact was made. The offer 
still stands. If the maintainer of CodeTools want some help, I'll be 
glad to do what I can but can we setup some time to chat (like on IRC) 
to help me get more familiar with however CodeTools is organized?


I cannot speak for Mattias but from my point of view (and I am at the 
same side as you - learning CodeTools code), you should not need or 
require such help. You can study by debugging the code. And I always got 
answers from Mattias to specific technical questions (I think I didn't 
have more than 3, though). One of my first patches for CodeTools was 
class helper support http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=28266 and it 
was 2 weeks of work. To support file names with dotted namespaces you 
won't probably need so much time but it should not be underestimated.


You probably will have to create a new structure for file namespaces, 
break filenames to pieces by dots and store the file information 
accordingly. Actually, thinking of it now, it should be possible with 
this approach.


Question to FPC people: does FPC support defining namespaces as Delphi does?
E.g. that a unit "MyCompany.MyLibrary.MyUnit.pas" I can be refered to 
with only "MyUnit" in the uses clause if the namespace 
"MyCompany.MyLibrary" is added to the project settings?


I have never used dotted names in FPC, only in Delphi, so forgive me if 
it is a dumb question.


Ondrej





--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Juha Manninen]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
> Is that version 1.5?

Yes.

> This is what I got when I followed an installation guide for putting
> FPC/Lazarus on a Raspberry Pi2 (ARM Cortex 7).
> Help/About says FPC 3.1.1 and Lazarus 1.5 (SVN 50023)
>
> If this is the beeding edge should I worry???

No worries! Trunk works pretty well now.

How many seconds does Lazarus take to start in Raspberry Pi2? The
startup was sped up before 1.4 release, it has most effect in low-end
machines.
How long does it take to build Lazarus? For example :
 $  time make clean bigide

Juha

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Sven Barth]

Am 12.10.2015 22:42 schrieb "Ondrej Pokorny" :
> Question to FPC people: does FPC support defining namespaces as Delphi
does?
> E.g. that a unit "MyCompany.MyLibrary.MyUnit.pas" I can be refered to
with only "MyUnit" in the uses clause if the namespace
"MyCompany.MyLibrary" is added to the project settings?

Not yet, but it's planned.

Regards,
Sven
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 22:41:50 +0200
Ondrej Pokorny  wrote:

>[...]
> Question to FPC people: does FPC support defining namespaces as Delphi does?
> E.g. that a unit "MyCompany.MyLibrary.MyUnit.pas" I can be refered to 
> with only "MyUnit" in the uses clause if the namespace 
> "MyCompany.MyLibrary" is added to the project settings?

AFAIK there is no FPC flag yet for specifying namespaces.

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Bo Berglund]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:13:53 +0300, Juha Manninen
 wrote:

>On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Bo Berglund  wrote:
>> Is that version 1.5?
>
>Yes.
>
>> This is what I got when I followed an installation guide for putting
>> FPC/Lazarus on a Raspberry Pi2 (ARM Cortex 7).
>> Help/About says FPC 3.1.1 and Lazarus 1.5 (SVN 50023)
>>
>> If this is the beeding edge should I worry???
>
>No worries! Trunk works pretty well now.
>
>How many seconds does Lazarus take to start in Raspberry Pi2? The
>startup was sped up before 1.4 release, it has most effect in low-end
>machines.

Just measured it:
>From the Menu/Programming/Lazarus click to when Lazarus is on the
screen with the last project loaded: 7 s

>How long does it take to build Lazarus? For example :
> $  time make clean bigide

I cannot give a definite answer here even though I have done about 4-5
full clean installs on different size SDcards over the week-end.
But after the svn was done fetching sources and FPC was compiled I did
this to Lazarus:

# cd /usr/local/lazarus/source
# make all OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF
# make install OPT=-dFPC_ARMHF PREFIX=/usr/local

I had set swap to 1000MB and I had configured the Pi to boot to the
command line rather than the GUI for the FPC/Lazarus build operations.

I would say that it took upwards of an hour to do the make. But I went
out for coffee during the make operation, I should really have put it
into a shelscript with a command to save a timestamp into a file at
the start and end of the operation.
Will do so the next time around.

But that might perhaps not be what you asked?

Both FPC and Lazarus sources are retrieved as trunk from svn.

Oh, I see now that you invoke a make not as root! Are you supposed to
be able to build Lazarus (and FPC) as a non-priviliged user?


-- 
Bo Berglund
Developer in Sweden


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

[Marcos Douglas]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Anthony Walter  wrote:
> A small thing, but I would like it if the CodeTools in 2.0 worked with units
> that have dotted namespaces.
>
> Right now if you type "use CompanyName." and press CTRL+SPACE you don't get
> a code completion list of units which start with "CompanyName."

+1

Marcos Douglas

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus