Hello, I would like to see FPC 2.2.2 in portage as well. It has been released in Nov 2007, so my request is no 0-day request... at least I hope so. :) As far as I can see, truedfx seems to be the current maintainer (at least he was doing some changes lately and added the last ebuild), so I add you to the CC list as well. I hope FPC 2.2.2 will soon be usable. :) Best regards, Mihai
Oh crap, sorry, it was released on Aug 11 and not Nov... I am sorry, my bad... You are free to invalidate the bug report or use it as a reminder, my apologizes.
Don't worry, especially for the lesser used packages, notifications such as these are welcome. I've looked at 2.2.2_rc1 already, and while fpc itself is looking good, I'd like to give lazarus (dev-lang/lazarus) a bit of time to catch up: the current version cannot be compiled with fpc 2.2.2. And I'm removing myself from the CC list because I'm already on the lang-misc@ alias; I'm getting bugmails twice now. :-)
Created attachment 163158 [details] dev-lang/lazarus-9999 (SVN) ebuild Hi, (In reply to comment #2) [...] > I've looked at 2.2.2_rc1 already, and while fpc itself is > looking good, I'd like to give lazarus (dev-lang/lazarus) a bit of time to > catch up: the current version cannot be compiled with fpc 2.2.2. [...] I see your problem. Would you let me hijack this thread for a Lazarus "issue" as well? Some time ago (it might be already a year), I wrote (or rather hacked) a lazarus-9999 ebuild in order of being able to use the very latest version, but also have the files under Portage's control. As far as I can tell, the ebuild works well and I didn't have any problems yet. It might be not too clean and the USE flag messing is a little bit weird and it maybe will have to be replaced by something more sophisticated, but all in all it should be fine. And as a bonus, it will work with FPC 2.2.0 and 2.2.2 as well. ;-) So, if you like, would you mind having a look at it as well? Once FPC 2.2.2 is stable we will have to change FPCVER, but that ought be the smallest problem. Best regards, Mihai
Hi, is anyone working on the new eBuild already? :p It seems like the FreePascal guys changed a lot of settings in their Makefile(s) and thus many targets older ebuilds use are now obsolete. Sounds like a lot of fun. :p Best regards, Mihai
Created attachment 163424 [details] fpc-2.2.2.ebuild > Would you let me hijack this thread for a Lazarus "issue" as well? > > Some time ago (it might be already a year), I wrote (or rather hacked) a > lazarus-9999 ebuild in order of being able to use the very latest version, but > also have the files under Portage's control. Would you please report that as a new bug? I myself have no plans to add it, because I am not familiar enough with lazarus to judge lazarus-HEAD's stability, but presumably once a new version of lazarus is released, and that and the new fpc are in portage, and this bug is closed, you would still like to have a lazarus live ebuild. And while I do not want to add it myself, I have no objections to it either if anyone else steps up to maintain it, so you would want to have an open bug for it. :-) > is anyone working on the new eBuild already? :p Attached here. Feel free to give it a try and report any issues you may find.
Hey, before you posted your eBuild, I already got something working. I've made a quick diff and would like to speak about the interesting parts. <SNIP> + ppc? ( mirror://sourceforge/freepascal/fpc-2.2.0.powerpc-linux.tar ) amd64? ( mirror://sourceforge/freepascal/fpc-${PV_BIN}.x86_64-linux.tar ) doc? ( mirror://sourceforge/freepascal/fpc-${PV}-doc-pdf.zip )" - # ppc? ( mirror://sourceforge/freepascal/fpc-${PV_BIN}.powerpc-linux.tar ) </SNIP> Obviously, you're fetching an old version of FPC for PPC... but why? OK, the user will be able to merge FPC 2.2.2, but he will actually install FPC 2.2.0 only, won't he? I see, that the FPC project obviously doesn't create PPC binaries anymore (or will they follow?), but there isn't much we can do about it, I guess... I just commented the PPC source out - PPC arch users won't be able to use FPC this way, but they can still use FPC 2.2.0... <SNIP> emake -j1 PP="${pp}" rtl packages_all utils || die "make failed" - emake -j1 PP="${pp}" -C packages fcl_all fv_all || die "make failed" </SNIP> <SNIP> emake -j1 "$@" compiler_install rtl_install packages_install \ utils_install || die "make install failed!" - emake -j1 "$@" -C packages fv_install || die "make install failed!" </SNIP> We found the same solution here! :-) I just added the second make pass which will build the targets fcl_all and fv_all in the packages/ dir, because the old ebuild (FPC 2.2.0) also did build them. I don't know though, if packages_all does not also build fcl and fv, so my approach might be useless, I guess this would require some testing. Another question though - why don't we simply use emake -j1 PP="${pp}" all? <SNIP> + find "${D}"usr/lib/fpc/${PV}/source -name '*.o' -exec rm {} \; </SNIP> What about -name '*.o' -o -name '*.ppu'? Just a guess. :-) All in all, it seems OK and it's working, from what I can tell. (I did not test your ebuild, but mine's working and there are no critical differences.) >Would you please report that as a new bug? OK. >I myself have no plans to add it, >because I am not familiar enough with lazarus to judge lazarus-HEAD's >stability, [...] I've been using it a lot and can recall only one case where the compilation failed, but the issue was fixed the following day. :) >[...] you would still like to >have a lazarus live ebuild. Uhm well, it's not of high importance and I myself can also live with this live ebuild in my overlay only. I just don't know how many users would be interested in this and if - although I had not to alter it more than one time in this year - maintaining it would be worth the effort. Though, clearly, I will file a new bug report. :-) Thank you so far for your help and I am awaiting your opinions. Best regards, Mihai
> Obviously, you're fetching an old version of FPC for PPC... but why? OK, the > user will be able to merge FPC 2.2.2, but he will actually install FPC 2.2.0 > only, won't he? ppc users will use fpc 2.2.0 to compile fpc 2.2.2. The binaries are not installed, they are only downloaded because fpc requires itself to compile. > I don't know though, if packages_all does not also build fcl and fv, so > my approach might be useless, I guess this would require some testing. I have fcl and fv installed. > Another question though - why don't we simply use emake -j1 PP="${pp}" all? It repeats the make compiler_cycle command. > + find "${D}"usr/lib/fpc/${PV}/source -name '*.o' -exec rm {} \; > What about -name '*.o' -o -name '*.ppu'? Just a guess. :-) There are no .ppu files in source/ to remove, so there is no need to search for them.
hello. I'm looking forward to seeing fpc updated in gentoo. They fixed quite some bugs. I would be happy to have an update on lazarus, but this is far less important to me. Greatings!
I've added fpc-2.2.2 (with a patch for bug #239264) to the tree. lazarus users will have to stay at 2.2.0-r1 until a new version of that is released.
