Please sync lazarus 0.9.24-0-12 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)

The original source tar.gz contains a debian/files file, which prevents building of lazarus-ide on i386 [1][2].

I am working on this issue and will provide a patch or other solution when it works.

[1] http://mantis.freepascal.org/view.php?id=12201
[2] https://launchpad.net/~paul-climbing/+archive/+build/726996

In addition to my previous comment the debian site[3] shows that this problem also exists there.

[3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/lazarus.htm

Hmm. In the PPA of launchpad the source builds if in the debian/rules file the dependencies of binary are turned around.
binary: binary-indep binary-arch
works, while the following does not:
binary: binary-arch binary-indep

I am not sure if this is limiting in building on Ubuntu, while at home in pdebuild also lazarus was just building.

Anyway, my PPA now contains a lazarus build for both i386 and amd64. I will test it tomorrow.

Hey Paul,

Any news on this?

Thanks,

James

> Any news on this?

This bug is just waiting for bug 275688. Or am I missing something here?
What more information is needed?

If bug 275688 is solved, lazarus should at least be rebuild.

Paul

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:22 +0000, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Any news on this?
>
> This bug is just waiting for bug 275688. Or am I missing something here?
> What more information is needed?
>
> If bug 275688 is solved, lazarus should at least be rebuild.

You said you were working on getting a package in to your PPA and then
you would test it. I just wanted to make sure you had done that, and
hadn't found any problems.

Should this package still be synced, or do you have patch that needs
to be applied?

Thanks,

James

> You said you were working on getting a package in to your PPA and then
> you would test it. I just wanted to make sure you had done that, and
> hadn't found any problems.
>
> Should this package still be synced, or do you have patch that needs
> to be applied?

I am not sure. The package did not build straight in my PPA, but
reversing the dependencies of the binary target in debian/rules worked.
However, as I understand it there is no guarantee on the order that
dependencies are invoked. And I don't know if the build environment in
the real Ubuntu works the same as in the PPA, so it *might* be
considered a patch...

What would be the best is if the binary-indep target would be build
independent of the binary-arch target. For instance, in my PPA the amd64
build did not build the binary-indep target, so it did not have any
problems, but building i386 the indep target was build at the same time
as the arch target and that is where things went wrong. (Basically the
debian/files get removed when the binary-indep target is build so if the
arch target is build first, that information is lost).

Paul

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:20 +0000, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > You said you were working on getting a package in to your PPA and then
> > you would test it. I just wanted to make sure you had done that, and
> > hadn't found any problems.
> >
> > Should this package still be synced, or do you have patch that needs
> > to be applied?
>
> I am not sure. The package did not build straight in my PPA, but
> reversing the dependencies of the binary target in debian/rules worked.
> However, as I understand it there is no guarantee on the order that
> dependencies are invoked. And I don't know if the build environment in
> the real Ubuntu works the same as in the PPA, so it *might* be
> considered a patch...
>
> What would be the best is if the binary-indep target would be build
> independent of the binary-arch target. For instance, in my PPA the amd64
> build did not build the binary-indep target, so it did not have any
> problems, but building i386 the indep target was build at the same time
> as the arch target and that is where things went wrong. (Basically the
> debian/files get removed when the binary-indep target is build so if the
> arch target is build first, that information is lost).

Yeah, this might just be a bug in the package, as Ubuntu does things
slightly differently to Debian here.

Thanks,

James

Note that then the 2.2.0 release should be modified to give the changed copyright situation a prominent notice (it can only be used to make GPL apps, contrary to what the docs say), or wholly retracted.

This is the reason why FPC Core has retracted 2.2.0 (and all other previous releases) from its site, and is the main reason for 2.2.2

The above comment was slightly wrong placed (should have been to 275688) , though it via FPC also affects pre 0.9.26 lazarus releases (any version that uses 2.2.0 or older) too. 0.9.26 uses 2.2.2

Please update sooner rather than later.

lazarus 0.9.26-2 is in jaunty.