Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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:

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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.

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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.

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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 >

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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.

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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.

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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"

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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." -- ___

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

[Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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 >

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

> > 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 --

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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:

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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 >

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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

Re: [Lazarus] Theoretical question about future of Lazarus

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