Installing Lazarus 1.8.4 on Ubuntu 18.04 lazarus / 1-Linux ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-07 20:26 Today I upgraded my Ubuntu Mate 17.10 to 18.04 and then Lazarus 1.8.2 to 1.8.4. At the beginning my several attempts to install Lazarus 1.8.4 were failed. Luckily, I managed to install Lazarus 1.8.4 at the end. Here I want to share how I did it, maybe it can be useful for others. If you don't understand how to use Gdebi, Synaptic Package Manager then you should not try what I did. Also remember: always do proper backup especially for the config files. You can read my previous tutorial Installing Lazarus 1.8.0 on Ubuntu 17.10 if you want to know more about Gdebi, Synaptic Package Manager, Version Locking. Read here: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,39281.0.html My previous system before software upgrade: Ubuntu Mate 17.10 Intel 64-bit Lazarus 1.8.2 64-bit I use the deb files downloaded from: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lazarus/files/Lazarus%20Linux%20amd64 %20DEB/Lazarus%201.8.4/ I use these tools: - Gdebi (makes installing deb packages easier) - Synaptic Package Manager (for inspecting problem and do version locking) After I upgraded to Ubuntu Mate 18.04 64-bit, I continued to Install Lazarus 1.8.4: Attempts That Failed 01. Uninstalled Lazarus, fpc-src, fpc 02. Installed fpc_3.0.4-3_amd64.deb using Gdebi 03. Installed fpc-src_3.0.4-2_amd64.deb using Gdebi 04. Failed to install lazarus-project_1.8.4-0_amd64.deb using Gdebi On step #04, I got a "Dependency is not satisfiable" error and the installation cannot continue. See image1. Installation That Succeed 01. Uninstalled Lazarus, fpc-src, fpc 02. Installed fpc_3.0.4-3_amd64.deb using Gdebi 03. Installed fpc-src_3.0.4-2_amd64.deb using Gdebi 04. Restarted the computer 05. Disconnect the internet connection 06. Installed lazarus-project_1.8.4-0_amd64.deb using Gdebi 07. Got "multiple lazarus" warning, see image2 08. For issue on #07, click "Start system default" and do step #09 09. Removed /home/handoko/.lazarus/bin folder 10. Got "incorrect configuration" warning, see image3 11. For issue on #10, click "Update info" 12. Did version locking on fpc using Synaptic Package Manager Usually you don't need step #04 but in some rare cases, you really need it. I had to do step #12, because using Synaptic Package Manager I learned that fpc is waiting to be update. I have several bad experiences, Ubuntu told me to update my fpc and I did as what it said, after that my Lazarus failed to start. I'm not sure, but it seems the step #05 was the thing caused my installation succeed. Update1: Although Lazarus 1.8.4 was installed after I finished the 12 steps above, it showed "error while linking" error if I tried rebuilding the IDE. You can read my posts below to learn how I solved it. But in short, I've done 2 things: I reinstalled OpenGL-related libraries (using Synaptic Package Manager) and removed OpenGL-related packages in the IDE (in my case: LazOpenGL Context, BGRABitmap, Castle Game Engine). Update2: The know if the FPC is in the update list or not using Synaptic Package Manager, read here: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41326.msg288471.h tml#msg288471 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 03:41 Unfortunately, the installation wasn't fully success. I got "error while linking" error when trying to rebuild my Lazarus. I can't use Lazarus 1.8.4 because I need to install third party components. For now I just reinstall back my Lazarus 1.8.2 and wait new release of Lazarus. Someone has the same issue as mine too: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41482.msg287880.h tml#msg287880 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- balazsszekely · 2018-06-08 04:09 @Handoko Try step 3 from here: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/BGRA_Installation_on_Linux It's about BGRA_Installation, but most likely will fix the linking error. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 05:51 Thank you GetMem. After I done that, I still get the same error. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- balazsszekely · 2018-06-08 06:01 One thing is sure one or more library is still missing(or wrong version). Set the filtering setting to the lowest "Filter none" in the Message Window. Do you get any extra information on rebuild? Can you please copy the messages to clipboard and paste it here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 06:32 Here are the messages after I set the filter to none and disable "Filter Hints without Source Position": Quotemake: Entering directory '/usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4' /usr/bin/make -C ide idepkg make[1]: Entering directory '/usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4/ide' /usr/bin/make --assume-new=lazarus.pp lazarus OPT=' @/home/handoko/.lazarus/idemake.cfg' make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4/ide' /usr/bin/fpc -gl -vbqewnhi -Sci -dlclgtk2 -Fu../designer -Fu../debugger -Fu../debugger/frames -Fu../converter -Fu../packager -Fu../packager/frames -Fu../components/custom -Fuframes -Fu. -Fiinclude -Fiinclude/linux -Fi../images -FE.. -FU../units/x86_64-linux/gtk2 -Cg -Fl/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/7 -Flinclude -Fl/etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf @/home/handoko/.lazarus/idemake.cfg -dx86_64 lazarus.pp Hint: (11030) Start of reading config file /etc/fpc.cfg Hint: (11031) End of reading config file /etc/fpc.cfg Hint: (11030) Start of reading config file /home/handoko/.lazarus/idemake.cfg Hint: (11031) End of reading config file /home/handoko/.lazarus/idemake.cfg Free Pascal Compiler version 3.0.4 [2018/05/21] for x86_64 Copyright (c) 1993-2017 by Florian Klaempfl and others (1002) Target OS: Linux for x86-64 (3104) Compiling lazarus.pp (9022) Compiling resource /home/handoko/.lazarus/units/x86_64-linux/gtk2/lazarus.or (9015) Linking /home/handoko/.lazarus/bin/lazarus /usr/bin/ld: warning: /home/handoko/.lazarus/bin/link.res contains output sections; did you forget -T? /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lGL /usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4/ide/lazarus.pp(161,1) Error: (9013) Error while linking /usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4/ide/lazarus.pp(161,1) Fatal: (10026) There were 1 errors compiling module, stopping Fatal: (1018) Compilation aborted make[2]: *** [lazarus] Error 1 make[1]: *** [idepkg] Error 2 Error: /usr/bin/ppcx64 returned an error exitcode Makefile:3961: recipe for target 'lazarus' failed make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4/ide' Makefile:4383: recipe for target 'idepkg' failed make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4/ide' make: *** [idepkg] Error 2 Makefile:3276: recipe for target 'idepkg' failed make: Leaving directory '/usr/share/lazarus/1.8.4' The line before "Error while linking" is: /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lGL What is it? And what should I do to fix it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 06:48 In my /home/handoko/.lazarus/bin/link.res I found these: Quote... INPUT( -lpthread -ldl -lgdk-x11-2.0 -lX11 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgobject-2.0 -lglib-2.0 -lgthread-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -lpango-1.0 -lcairo -latk-1.0 -lGL -lpangocairo-1.0 ) ... So lGL is a library. I checked using Synaptic Package Manager, lGL can't be found in the repository of Ubuntu 18.04 default installation. Still looking for solution ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- balazsszekely · 2018-06-08 07:40 sudo apt-get install libgl1-mesa-dev ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 08:06 libgl1-mesa-dev was already installed. Because Ubuntu 18.04 (maybe also other linuxes) drops support for NVidia driver 304, now I'm using Nouveau driver. It's working good, I can run Lulu's Fire & Wire game (Game Contest 2018) using this open source driver. Could you think this is the cause of the problem. Previously before I upgraded my Ubuntu and Lazarus, I was using NVidia driver version 304. I had no such problem. Ubuntu 18.04 only provides Nouveau (open source), NVidia 340 and 390 drivers. The version 340 and 390 show only a blank screen and stop when starting the Ubuntu. I googled the web, I saw people are complaining the missing NVidia 304 support on Ubuntu 18.04 and lGL library on Ubuntu 18.04. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- balazsszekely · 2018-06-08 08:33 QuoteCould you think this is the cause of the problem?Yes. Maybe you should post a question on the Ubuntu forum and ask the guys if it's possible to install those libraries under 18.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 09:41 Problem solved, now my Lazarus 1.8.4 seems to work correctly. Not sure which one was the 'real' solution, but I have done these: Because IGL is a library related with OpenGL, I use Synaptic Package Manager to reinstall items that related with OpenGL. I use Synaptic to find items with keyword "libGL". Then right-clicked on them and selected "Mark for reinstallation". (This is what I like about Synaptic, you can reinstall items without need the dependent libs/programs to be removed. AFAIK, I can't do it using Terminal). Also, on the Lazarus IDE, I marked the OpenGL related packages to uninstall. FYI, I previously had LazOpenGL Context, BGRABitmap, Castle Game Engine installed on Lazarus 1.8.2. After I done those 2 things above, I rebuilt my Lazarus 1.8.4. Everything went smoothly. And later I reinstalled back LazOpenGL Context, BGRABitmap, Castle Game Engine packages. So far my Lazarus 1.8.4 now works without any issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- howardpc · 2018-06-08 11:33 I think it is not "IGL" but "lGL" (lowercase L). So  sudo apt-get install lGL should do the trick, and the only "i" is in "install". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 11:56 Oh my fault, if I mentioned IGL. It should be lGL. I got "Unable to locate package lGL" if I type sudo apt-get install lGL on my Ubuntu 18.04 Terminal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- howardpc · 2018-06-08 12:47 Sorry that should be  ... install libGL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 14:24 libGL was already installed. Thank you for the suggestion, now my Lazarus is working correctly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2018-06-08 14:51 I've made this thread sticky. The idea is to gather some debian/mate/ubuntu related issues here, hopefully resulting in a general upgrade advisory. (I usually zap ~/.lazarus, which means I have to reenter settings. But usually that is still less work for me, since I don't customize that much) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 15:59 I customized the color scheme, window positions and many things. I want to keep the settings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- garlar27 · 2018-06-08 16:05 Every time I have a problem installing on Linux I try to keep a record of what I did. Last time I installed Lazarus (1.8.2) on Ubuntu (16.4) with a non developer profile so I had to install several libraries: Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i         Detail of dependencies:              o------------------o ----------------------o              |   MESSAGE        |    INSTALL         |      COMMAND              O==================O============== ========O======================================           o- | -lgtk-x11-2.0    |                      | (Restart if needed)            | -lgdk-x11-2.0    | libgtk2.0-dev        | sudo apt-get install libgtk2.0-dev              o------------------o---------------------- o           o- | -lX11            | libx11-dev           | sudo apt- get install libx11-dev              o------------------o ----------------------o           o- | -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 |                    |           o- | -lgobject-2.0    |                      |         o- | -lglib-2.0       |                      |           o- | -lgthread-2.0    |                      |           o- | -lgmodule-2.0    | libgdk-pixbuf2.0-dev | sudo apt-get install libgdk-pixbuf2.0-dev              o------------------o----------------------o           o- | -lpango-1.0      |                      |           o- | -lcairo        |                      |           o- | -lpangocairo-1.0 | libpango1.0-dev      | sudo apt-get install libpango1.0-dev            o------------------o----------------------o           o- | -latk-1.0        | libatk1.0-dev        | sudo apt-get install libatk1.0-dev            o------------------o----------------------o              Some Package Dependencies              o------------------o ----------------------o              |   MESSAGE        |    INSTALL         |      COMMAND              O==================O============== ========O======================================           o- | -lGL           | libgl1-mesa-dev      | sudo apt-get install libgl1-mesa- dev              o------------------o----------------------o           o- | -lcl             | libcl.so             | look here http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php?topic=28053.15            o------------------o----------------------o I hope it helps ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-08 16:08 +1 @garlar27 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- tudi_x · 2018-06-09 12:18 http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/BGRA_Installation_on_Linux updated with Linux MINT 19 XFCE beta. Linux MINT 19 XFCE is based on Ubuntu 18.04 and more user friendly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-12 06:27 I updated the first post (update2), how to check if the fpc is in the update list. Read here if anyone interested to know how to use Synaptic Package Manager to see apps/libs that are in the update list: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41326.msg288471.h tml#msg288471 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- guest61674 · 2018-06-23 16:09 There is no need to restart Linux, Everyone has to know that Linux is not Windows to restart. With a single command I installed the versions informed using the Terminal without needing to install Gdebi nor Synaptic: Quote sudo dpkg -i *.deb The deb files should all be in a folder and the terminal also Sorry if the translation was not good (Google Translate). I have been a Linux expert for many years. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-23 18:08 In some very rare cases, you really need to restart your computer. I ever had such problem at least twice. Linux is sometimes as stupid as Windows, especially when you installing/uninstalling certain libraries. Rare but it is true. For example, you can try: fresh install Linux with Nvidia VGA, if you don't restart your computer after installing Nvidia driver your Linux computer most likely won't load the driver. I never said you can't install Lazarus without Gdebi nor Synaptic. Gdebi is a handy tools that can automatically solves some library dependency issue. I use Synaptic for inspecting problem. And of course you don't have to do version locking (using Synaptic) and your Lazarus may still work correctly, but after: - You're not using Lazarus provided from your Linux repository - Your installed Lazarus version > Lazarus version in the Linux repository - Linux have just updated the FPC version in its repository - You answered "Yes" when your Linux tell you to update if all the 4 items above are satisfied, your Lazarus won't start. I've tested this issue many times and I'm sure about it. Quote from: Heriberto_Paula on June 23, 2018, 06:09:17 pmWith a single command I installed the versions informed using the Terminal ... That's because you have IQ above average. FYI, not all users in this forum can use Terminal as proficient as you. --- Off topic --- I failed to install Lazarus 1.8.0 on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (fresh installed) without using Gdebi. I tried it 3 times, but all were failed. Can you please try installing Lazarus 1.8.0 on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (fresh installed) using Terminal only. If you managed to do it please write a installation guide. Here is the link: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,39281.msg269112.h tml#msg269112 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- guest61674 · 2018-06-23 18:10 Sorry, the second command was missing: sudo apt-get install -f will be asked to install the missing packages on the system Y to Yes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- guest61674 · 2018-06-23 18:15 QuoteLinux is sometimes as stupid as Windows, especially when you installing/uninstalling certain libraries. Rare but it is true. For example, you can try: fresh install Linux with Nvidia VGA, if you don't restart your computer after installing Nvidia driver your Linux computer most likely won't load the driver. proprietary drivers where the fonts are closed, otherwise a modprob would solve the case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-23 18:18 Modprob, what is it? I ever heard it but don't know much about it. Why should I do modprob if I only need a computer restart to solve it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- bylaardt · 2018-06-24 02:14 Quote from: Handoko on June 23, 2018, 08:08:27 pmI use Synaptic for inspecting problem. And of course you don't have to do version locking (using Synaptic) and your Lazarus may still work correctly, but after: - You're not using Lazarus provided from your Linux repository - Your installed Lazarus version > Lazarus version in the Linux repository - Linux have just updated the FPC version in its repository - You answered "Yes" when your Linux tell you to update if all the 4 items above are satisfied, your Lazarus won't start. I've tested this issue many times and I'm sure about it. have you changed the control file to then workaround for ubuntu dfsg-3 suffix on lazarus package?  https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41333.msg287683. html#msg287683 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-06-24 02:46 Thank you for providing the information about manually modify the deb files. I've never tried it, so far I've been using version locking for years and it seems to works without problem. I will try your suggestion for next Lazarus releases. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- whiffee · 2018-08-22 23:35 A very good installation tutorial. I was having major trouble installing on Mint 19. GDebi installed the FP files okay, but then refused to install Laz because, I guess, of minor name differences in the installation script (e.g. a dependency called fp-compiler). Your ingenious insight about cutting the internet connection at the crucial moment was truly inspired. Thanks much for the assist. whiffee    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2018-08-23 06:09 Hmm, I have installed Lazarus on Ubuntu 18.04 three times in the last month or so. Each time I have followed the same model and its worked flawlessly (except for one special case noted below). I first install the FPC as an Ubuntu package (at present its the right one to build L184). I then do Handoko's trick of locking it so Ubuntu does not try any sneaky updates. Because I'm doing this nicely (according to Ubuntu) it brings down all the necessary build tools as dependencies and its dead easy. Then I pull down Lazarus source and build it using that compiler. I like to have the IDE and LCL in user space where there are no issues about write permission. Lazarus does some clever tricks to hide that problem but it still worries me. So, once FPC and all its dependencies are installed I - Code: [Select]cd ~/bin mkdir -p Lazarus/184 cd Lazarus/184 svn checkout http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/tags/lazarus_1_8_4  . # note, a space and dot at the end of above line make CPU_TARGET=x86_64 #make CPU_TARGET=i386 And thats all thats really necessary. It does not set a path to the lazarus dir nor add a shortcut to your main menu but both are easy. In my ~/bin directory I have a script I made executable containing - Code: [Select]#!/bin/bash cd ~/bin/Lazarus/184 ./startlazarus This has worked perfectly on an U18.4 upgrade and two fresh installs including a 32bit atom powered 2012 netbook with only 2G ram. The one issue I have had was that on the (64bit) machine I upgraded to Ubuntu 18.04, I also setup as a cross compile machine. The windows cross compiling was a breeze  but getting it to compile 32bit Linux binaries was an issue due to 3 Ubuntu upgrade errors.  In /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu  libpangocairo-1.0.so was a broken link. pointed to ~.4 and should have pointed to .14In /usr/lib/i386-linux- gnu there was no libglib-2.0.so, however there was libglib-2.0.so.0 -> libglib-2.0.so.0.5600.1The  fpc.cfg section #ifdef cpu386 needed to point to above, ie     -Fl/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu     -Fl/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/7/32     -Fl/usr/lib32 One more thing while I am sprouting off !  I believe most problems people have installing on Ubuntu relate to the fact that people use dpkg -i to install downloaded debs and dpkg does not resolve dependencies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-08-23 06:43 Me too have problem compiling to 32-bit Linux binaries, I'm using 64-bit Linux. Quote from: dbannon on August 23, 2018, 08:09:27 amOne more thing while I am sprouting off !  I believe most problems people have installing on Ubuntu relate to the fact that people use dpkg -i to install downloaded debs and dpkg does not resolve dependencies. I think so, it seems dpkg is not smart enough to solve the dependency issue. I recommend GDebi because on my tests it managed to solve several dependency issues, which dpkg failed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2018-08-23 07:29 Ah, Handoko, just to clarify.  dpkg does not claim to resolve dependencies, Its not intended to. Its a low level command intended to be called by smarter tools. gdebi is most certainly the way to go but sadly, its not installed by default on all deb using systems !  I recently had a user complaining my tomboy-ng was generating errors on his current Debian system, when I looked into it, I realized he was using dpkg to install because gdebi was unavailable. I recommended he first install gdebi (apt get gdebi) and then my app !    'apt' of course does resolve dependencies but only gets things from official repos. From memory, gdebi was about 50meg of extra disk space, cli and gui tools. Good value ! By the way, there should be no reason to reboot during installs of this nature. Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- valdir.marcos · 2018-08-23 16:27 From https://wiki.debian.org/dpkg dpkg checks dependencies and will refuse to install a package whose dependencies aren't met, but it won't help you find and install those dependencies. You need a higher-level tool (e.g. aptitude, apt-get or dselect) for that. Quote from: dbannon on August 23, 2018, 09:29:00 amAh, Handoko, just to clarify.  dpkg does not claim to resolve dependencies, Its not intended to. Its a low level command intended to be called by smarter tools.dpkg does resolve dependencies when you put all DEB files on the same directory, not internet dependencies. Quote'apt' of course does resolve dependencies but only gets things from official repos.If you know how to set /etc/apt/sources.list, you can use any repository, including your own site repository. QuoteFrom memory, gdebi was about 50meg of extra disk space, cli and gui tools. Good value !FPC and Lazarus should not need gdebi, but it is a valuable tool for people that are not linux sys admins. QuoteBy the way, there should be no reason to reboot during installs of this nature.Correct. The problem here is bigger than you think: man power lacking on many open source projects. ------------------- Is Debian Dying? Off the Beat: Bruce Byfield's Blog Feb 11, 2011 GMT Bruce Byfield http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield- s-Blog/Is-Debian-Dying ------------------- Open source developers are getting old, retiring and dying, and not being replaced as fast as that... And a last piece of information: of course, Debian won't be dying any time soon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-08-23 18:43 The way I've always installed in Debian derivatives is through a local "repository" of sorts. This the process I follow(ed): Preparing a local repository Create a directory, say /usr/local/mydebsAdd a line to your sources.list: deb file:/usr/local/mydebs ./In ~/bin/ create an script file update- mydebs with this content: Code: [Select]#! /bin/bash cd /usr/local/mydebs dpkg-scanpackages . /dev/null | gzip -9c > Packages.gz apt-get update and make it executable. Updating Lazarus Now, every time a new Lazarus release comes: Uninstall (purge) the previous releaseDownload the three DEBs and copy/move them to /usr/local/mydebsIn a terminal, run: sudo update- mydebsIn your package manager (Synaptic, Muon, etc.) search for and install the new Lazarus version (package lazarus-project); it will pick up all its dependencies--mainly fpc and fpc-src I've followed this process for years and the only time it failed it was because a bad Ubuntu install. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-08-23 19:01 Thank you for sharing your script. I'm not good in using Terminal, but I'm sure to try your trick when the next Lazarus comes out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vangli · 2018-08-30 13:59 Hi. I also meet this problem, Ubuntu 18.04 overwriting a manual installation from .deb packages. The simple solution, as root (or sudo ....), is doing the following after removing Ubuntu versions of Lazarus and fpc. First install apt-mark if you not already has it installed apt install apt-mark Install the lazarus, fpc and fpc-source .deb packages manually with your preferred tool, then apt-mark showmanual | grep lazarus apt-mark showmanual | grep fpc apt-mark hold lazarus-project apt-mark hold fpc fpc-src apt-mark showhold The to first list your Lazarus compiler system and tells you the names for the next commands. The hold commands mark the packages to be held back from upgrades and dist-upgrades. On upgrades you will get a message about packages held back . The last command just list which packages that are held back. Bent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2018-08-30 14:07 Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I'm not very knowledgeable in using Linux Terminal. I didn't know about apt-mark hold. I use Synaptic's version locking to prevent Ubuntu to update the FPC packages I installed by using the deb packages downloaded from SourceForge. I will try your suggestion on next Lazarus / Ubuntu release. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 00:16 I'm doomed!!  I have tried everything I can to get Lazarus to stop breaking due to this damn update outhere that breaks it every time.  I thought maybe this apt-mark would work.  But as soon as I try to install apt-mark I find it isn't in the repo my distro uses.  this whole mess is so frustrating. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-09-01 00:57 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 02:16:04 amI'm doomed!!  I have tried everything I can to get Lazarus to stop breaking due to this damn update outhere that breaks it every time.  I thought maybe this apt-mark would work.  But as soon as I try to install apt-mark I find it isn't in the repo my distro uses.  this whole mess is so frustrating. Have you tried my method above? Ubuntu should not install updates unless they come from the same repository---or from a manual install ---and with my method that repository is under your absolute control. No need to lock versions, no nothing but select the lazarus-project package and install. Edited to add this NOTE: I though you should know that I've not installed yet on a release higher than 16.04. If anyone does, please tell your results. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- valdir.marcos · 2018-09-01 02:13 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 02:16:04 amI'm doomed!!  I have tried everything I can to get Lazarus to stop breaking due to this damn update outhere that breaks it every time.  I thought maybe this apt-mark would work.  But as soon as I try to install apt-mark I find it isn't in the repo my distro uses.  this whole mess is so frustrating.You can talk directly with Debian Ubuntu Pascal Packaging Team: Pascal Packaging Team You can also check the changes from original sources into Debian packages: Packages overview for Pascal Packaging Team https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-pascal- devel@lists.alioth.debian.org fpc - Free Pascal - SDK suite dependency package https://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fpc.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JuhaManninen · 2018-09-01 08:14 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 02:16:04 amI'm doomed!! Dump external .debs and you are doomed no more! You are hard-headed. You bang your head with the Debian package system longer than people in average. Finally you will end up with the same conclusion though. For Hartmut at least this worked without problems:  https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,42393.msg295887. html#msg295887 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 17:28 Quote from: lucamar on September 01, 2018, 02:57:37 amQuote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 02:16:04 amI'm doomed!!  I have tried everything I can to get Lazarus to stop breaking due to this damn update outhere that breaks it every time.  I thought maybe this apt- mark would work.  But as soon as I try to install apt-mark I find it isn't in the repo my distro uses.  this whole mess is so frustrating. Have you tried my method above? Ubuntu should not install updates unless they come from the same repository---or from a manual install ---and with my method that repository is under your absolute control. No need to lock versions, no nothing but select the lazarus-project package and install. Edited to add this NOTE: I though you should know that I've not installed yet on a release higher than 16.04. If anyone does, please tell your results. I will give it a try ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 17:54 Quote from: JuhaManninen on September 01, 2018, 10:14:52 amQuote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 02:16:04 amI'm doomed!! Dump external .debs and you are doomed no more! You are hard-headed. You bang your head with the Debian package system longer than people in average. Finally you will end up with the same conclusion though. For Hartmut at least this worked without problems:  https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,42393.msg295887. html#msg295887 Ok, I am giving it a try.  I have never done anything quite like this in Linux before.  I have an error, but dont know why. Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i david@david-HP:~$ sudo update-mydebsdpkg-scanpackages: warning: Packages in archive but missing from override file:dpkg-scanpackages: warning:   fpc fpc-src lazarus-projectdpkg-scanpackages: info: Wrote 3 entries to output Packages file.Get:1 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ InReleaseIgn:1 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ InReleaseGet:2 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ ReleaseErr:2 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ Release  File not found - /usr/local/mydebs/./Release (2: No such file or directory)  But "/user/local/mydebs" does exist Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i david@david-HP:~$ cd /usr/local/mydebsdavid@david- HP:/usr/local/mydebs$ I do not know what I have done wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-09-01 18:33 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 07:54:18 pm[...] I have an error, but dont know why. Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i david@david-HP:~$ sudo update-mydebsdpkg-scanpackages: warning: Packages in archive but missing from override file:dpkg-scanpackages: warning:   fpc fpc-src lazarus-projectdpkg-scanpackages: info: Wrote 3 entries to output Packages file.Get:1 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ InReleaseIgn:1 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ InReleaseGet:2 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ ReleaseErr:2 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ Release  File not found - /usr/local/mydebs/./Release (2: No such file or directory)  [...] I do not know what I have done wrong. Nothing wrong with you, though maybe with me. It looks like there have been some changes to either dpkg(-scanpackages), apt(-get) or both. Either that or there is something different in my configuration(s). You can ignore the warnings of dpkg-scanpackages (they are meaningless for you), but the other errors (which come from apt-get update) may be fatal ... or not: have you looked to see if Synaptic has the "new" packages ready to install? I'm sorry that I can't be of more help but my access to anything newer than Ubuntu 16.04 is very limited. Maybe Juha is right, after all ETA: For completeness sake, this is how executing the script looks like normally (in Spanish): Code: [Select]lucamar@luna:~/bin$ sudo ./update-mydebs.sh        dpkg-scanpackages: aviso: Paquetes en el archivo pero no presentes en el archivo «override»: dpkg-scanpackages: aviso:   fpc fpc-src lazarus-project dpkg-scanpackages: información: Se han escrito «3» entradas en el archivo «Packages» de salida. Ign file: ./ InRelease Ign file: ./ Release.gpg Ign file: ./ Release Ign http://es.archive.ubuntu.com trusty InRelease                            Ign http://extras.ubuntu.com trusty InRelease                                Ign file: ./ Translation-es_ES                                              Ign file: ./ Translation-es                                                  Des:1 http://extras.ubuntu.com trusty Release.gpg [72 B]                    Ign file: ./ Translation-en                                                  [... lots of similar lines from "apt-get update" ...] Ign http://es.archive.ubuntu.com trusty/restricted Translation-es_ES Ign http://es.archive.ubuntu.com trusty/universe Translation-es_ES Descargados 17,5 MB en 10min. 12seg. (28,5 kB/s) Leyendo lista de paquetes... Hecho As you see, dpkg-scanpackages gives the same warnings/info, which is normal, but "apt-get update" works normally. Note: luna is a Kubuntu 14.04 box, so YMMV. Ahem ... it does indeed "vary", doesn't it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 18:46 Damn, no the new one isn't in the package manager for me to install. I am at my wits end.  I can't install it from the package manager because that is broke from the very beginning.  I can install from the debs and that is fine until the package manager overwrites it with something that doesn't work.  Hopefully someone will get it together and do something about the root of the issue.  I have posted on the forums about the fact that the Lazarus that is in the repo is broken and doesn't work.  I have also posted about the package manager overwriting my working manual install and breaking it.  I have not gotten any response at all.  If this was something with Firefox the distro would be all over it to fix it.  But, it's Lazarus and they just don't care.  It appears to be coming from the Debian repos which also seem to be the ones Ubuntu is using or using for theirs.  I can only hope that someone from the Lazarus team knows someone on the Debian/Ubuntu team and will take the initiative and work this out.  But, I kind of doubt it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 19:38 I appear to have gotten farther but still have an error.  any idea...anyone Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i david@david-HP:~$ sudo update-mydebsdpkg-scanpackages: info: Wrote 0 entries to output Packages file.david@david-HP:~$ sudo update- mydebsdpkg-scanpackages: warning: Packages in archive but missing from override file:dpkg-scanpackages: warning:   fpc fpc-src lazarus- projectdpkg-scanpackages: info: Wrote 3 entries to output Packages file.david@david-HP:~$ sudo apt-get updateGet:1 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ InReleaseIgn:1 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ InReleaseGet:2 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ ReleaseErr:2 file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ Release  File not found - /usr/local/mydebs/./Release (2: No such file or directory)Hit:3 http://packages.deepin.com/deepin panda InRelease     Reading package lists... DoneE: The repository 'file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ Release' does not have a Release file.N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.david@david-HP:~$ sudo apt-get install lazarus-projectReading package lists... DoneBuilding dependency tree       Reading state information... DonePackage lazarus-project is not available, but is referred to by another package.This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, oris only available from another source E: Package 'lazarus-project' has no installation candidatedavid@david-HP:~$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JuhaManninen · 2018-09-01 19:53 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 07:54:18 pmQuote from: JuhaManninen on September 01, 2018, 10:14:52 am... For Hartmut at least this worked without problems:  https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,42393.msg295887. html#msg295887 Ok, I am giving it a try.  I have never done anything quite like this in Linux before.  I have an error, but dont know why. Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i david@david-HP:~$ sudo update-mydebs...... I do not know what I have done wrong. Well, you quoted my instructions but then started to do something different again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-09-01 19:58 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 09:38:07 pmI appear to have gotten farther but still have an error.  any idea...anyone Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i [...]E: The repository 'file:/usr/local/mydebs ./ Release' does not have a Release file.N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.  Well, that tells you all there is to know: seems that, by default, Ubuntu won't let you install packages from unsigned repositories even if they are local. All you can do, if you want to keep trying this way, is try man apt-secure and learn how to make the local repo secure or by-pass the default check. Each day this looks more and more like Windows... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 20:09 I found this: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=898310 This perfectly fits my problem and it seems that an update to Lazarus fixes the issue.  (see last post in thread)  I just don't know if that has been released yet, and if it has where I could get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-09-01 20:48 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 10:09:13 pmI found this: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=898310 This perfectly fits my problem and it seems that an update to Lazarus fixes the issue.  (see last post in thread)  I just don't know if that has been released yet, and if it has where I could get it. Two points: I don't think that applies to your problem: it applied to the Lazarus 1.8.2 packages in Debian repositories (have you looked inside the files cited in the bug report?)The fix, as the last posts show, was applied by the Debian maintainer to the Lazarus 1.8.4 packages, so it should be current.And, of course, that may mean something if you were using the Debian packages, but you are not: you're using the Lazarus ones, which have (most) always been right. Sorry .. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 21:15 I am just trying to get a working Lazarus install.   That perfectly describes the problem I have with the repo install.  And again, I keep saying this over and over and over.  I have NO problems with the deb files, none, zip, nada.  they work fine.  It is AFTER I install using debs that I have a problem, the OS package manger detects the install and overwrites it with something from the repo, breaking my install. The post indicates that the fix is in 1.8.4+dfsg-2 The repo install is giving me 1.8.4+dfsg-1 So, what ever repo this distro is pointed to doesn't appear to have the update. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-09-01 21:25 Quote from: dfergfla on September 01, 2018, 11:15:24 pmI am just trying to get a working Lazarus install.   [...] I have NO problems with the deb files, none, zip, nada.  they work fine.  It is AFTER I install using debs that I have a problem, the OS package manger detects the install and overwrites it with something from the repo, breaking my install. The post indicates that the fix is in 1.8.4+dfsg-2 The repo install is giving me 1.8.4+dfsg-1 So, what ever repo this distro is pointed to doesn't appear to have the update. The distro, of course, points to the Ubuntu repositories, not the Debian ones. You know, maybe we aren't looking properly at this issue: If your distro has Lazarus 1.8.4 in its repository, why install from external DEBs? Use the distros own repository. That would probably put an end to all your problems! edit - I forgot your problem was with the official Ubuntu packages. Never mind At this point your best bet is probably to follow Juha's advice and install from source. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JuhaManninen · 2018-09-01 22:17 Quote from: lucamar on September 01, 2018, 11:25:02 pmAt this point your best bet is probably to follow Juha's advice and install from source. Exactly! This is getting insane. If you refuse to use the easy method recommended by a Lazarus developer (me) then at least tell us why. Remember, by using SVN sources you get the latest bugfixes as an extra bonus by running "svn up" sometimes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 22:22 You assume I know how to do that.  I am just a hobbyist that used Pascal way, way back in 80s.  I wanted to play around with it again and found Lazarus about 2 years ago or so and so far it has been great.  But I don't know how to install from source or what this "svn- up" is.  So, you can suggest I install from source until it rains purple dinosaurs from heaven.  It doesn't help me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-09-01 22:30 Quote from: JuhaManninen on September 02, 2018, 12:17:19 amRemember, by using SVN sources you get the latest bugfixes as an extra bonus by running "svn up" sometimes. And the hyper-extra bugs too!!!  Quote from: dfergfla on September 02, 2018, 12:22:08 amYou assume I know how to do that.  [...] But I don't know how to install from source or what this "svn-up" is.  So, you can suggest I install from source until it rains purple dinosaurs from heaven.  It doesn't help me. Juha left more or less detailed instructions in your previous topic and there's some help in the wiki too. It's not very hard. But perhaps fpcupdeluxe is a little more palatable for you: it's a tool which aims to automating (most? all?) tasks that Juha pointed to. Search the wiki (and the forum): it's all there.* * Sorry, but it's 00:29 here and I'm feeling too lazy to search for you. ETA Talk of the devil! Just appeared in the feed the topic about fpcupdeluxe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-01 23:02 Thank You, it was going well...then BOOM!  I really think that for me I just have to wait till all this gets straightened out.  I am just a hobbist and I have now spent over 10 hours trying to get a working Lazarus.  I just can't spend more time on it.  Hopefully...someday...it will work for me again.  If not, oh well.  It was fun while it lasted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JuhaManninen · 2018-09-01 23:37 Quote from: lucamar on September 02, 2018, 12:30:42 amAnd the hyper- extra bugs too!!!  No, those are in trunk. I recommended the fixes_1_8 branch for him. It is more stable than the latest release. QuoteJuha left more or less detailed instructions in your previous topic and there's some help in the wiki too. It's not very hard. Exactly. If a person is able to do anything in Linux, he is able to run those commands. QuoteBut perhaps fpcupdeluxe is a little more palatable for you: it's a tool which aims to automating (most? all?) tasks that Juha pointed to. Search the wiki (and the forum): it's all there.* Uhhh, why did you bring that extra complication here again! Fpcupdeluxe is not needed for getting and compiling Lazarus sources. Fpcupdeluxe is a complex tool, good for building cross-compilers etc. advanced stuff. It should not be recommended for this simple task! What is wrong with you people? How to stop all the wrong advice given for new users? Quote from: dfergfla on September 02, 2018, 01:02:55 amThank You, it was going well...then BOOM!  I really think that for me I just have to wait till all this gets straightened out.  I am just a hobbist and I have now spent over 10 hours trying to get a working Lazarus.  I just can't spend more time on it.  Hopefully...someday...it will work for me again.  If not, oh well.  It was fun while it lasted. You are able to do complex configuration for Debian package system and then use fpcupdeluxe, but you are not able to run these commands in console? Code: [Select]svn co https://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/branches/fixes_1_8/ lazarus_1_8 cd lazarus_1_8 make ./lazarus &Sorry but I don't believe you. I don't know what is going on. Goodbye. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2018-09-02 00:59 Quote from: JuhaManninen on September 02, 2018, 01:37:28 amQuoteBut perhaps fpcupdeluxe is a little more palatable for you: it's a tool which aims to automating (most? all?) tasks that Juha pointed to. Search the wiki (and the forum): it's all there.* Uhhh, why did you bring that extra complication here again! Fpcupdeluxe is not needed for getting and compiling Lazarus sources. Fpcupdeluxe is a complex tool, good for building cross-compilers etc. advanced stuff. It should not be recommended for this simple task! What is wrong with you people? How to stop all the wrong advice given for new users? Huh? Wrong advice? I have not given "advice"; I've shown posibilities. In fact, I recommended your.way in this case. And do you really think that fpcupdeluxe is "a complex tool" which "shouldn't be recommended for this task"? "Advanced stuff"? It was created for this task! See here: Quote from: DonAlfredo on November 01, 2016, 03:13:59 pmIntroducing fpcupdeluxe. A GUI tool that is based on fpcup by the late Renier. [...] It will ease the install of FPC and Lazarus.* And, as with fpcup, it is fully self-contained, meaning that you can install it on your system without worries about other installs of FPC and Lazarus. [...] --- * Emphasis mine And why was it created? Because settting up FPC and Lazarus from sources isn't such a "simple" task unless you're lucky and have some experience.It's not a question of "three commands and done" for most mortals. You should know. Neither is it a task of Sisiphus, of course---though sometimes it looks like it. It simply requires a little skill, patience ... and some knowledge, which most newbies (and even not-so-newbies) don't have. I should know: That was the way I installed/updated in the ancient times of the 0.9 "releases". Try to chill a little; Linux isn't the most forgiving environment and people will keep having problems and asking for help and misinterpreting our instructions. That's life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dfergfla · 2018-09-02 02:34 Sorry, I am not better with Linux.  The instructions for doing an install from scratch are fine.  I am just not comfortable with it and I don't want to take a chance on doing something really wrong and making a mess of my system.  Don't say it can't happen, we all know it can.  If this was the 80's and I was on my Comodore 64 or Amiga I would be fine with compiling things like this.  But, those days are gone.  Just an old man here still playing with computers.  I have been using Linux for about 2 years and I do like it.  I have learned a lot.  I have destroyed my system a few times tying new things and having them go wrong.  I have developed a healthy respect for not futzing with Linux too much.  She can be evil when you don't know what your doing.  I have followed all things I can trying to do this.  I've learned some new things, but as I said.  I am just not comfortable trying anything else too 'outside the box' at this time.  It does appear that a fix is out there and hopefully it will make it into all the repos soon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JuhaManninen · 2018-09-02 08:59 Quote from: lucamar on September 02, 2018, 02:59:05 amTry to chill a little; Linux isn't the most forgiving environment and people will keep having problems and asking for help and misinterpreting our instructions. That's life. Ok, I am sorry for my tone. I admit fpcupdeluxe is an impressive tool and it has worked most of times I used it. Yet it is complex and its GUI is intimidating for me and more so for new users. It tackles the most difficult cases of installation, especially cross- compilation with FPC. Installing native FPC from sources is already more difficult than installing Lazarus from sources. Installing a cross-compiler is much more difficult and fpcupdeluxe shines there. For a person who just wants to try latest Lazarus it is problematic. The GUI gives an impression that the task is very complex. It is difficult to see what is essential. It gives the impression that installing FPC from sources is needed to install Lazarus. No it is not. Any distro provides at least FPC 3.0.2 which is OK for building Lazarus. It is a matter of running one "svn checkout ..." command and then "make", for heaven's sake! What more, many people use fpcupdeluxe to get a combination of FPC trunk + Lazarus trunk. It is OK if you know what you are doing but their chance for broken compilation or other hickups increases. It is not for new casual Lazarus users! Let's say fpcupdeluxe is like a sports car, uncomfortable in city traffic but shines when getting on a fast cornered track. Kudos for its authors, yes! @dfergfla, I also started computing in 1980's. Fundamentals of programming have changes less than one would imagine. However there is one true innovation which you must learn, namely revision control systems. Subversion and Git are the most commonly used now. The commands I gave you must be run on a console. After 2 years of Linux you know how to do that, right? It is a matter of copy/paste, even if you don't fully understand what the commands do. The command for subversion is "svn", it can get parameters like "checkout" or "update" ("co" or "up" for short). Please take your time to study the commands. Soon they will seem trivial. Quote from: dfergfla on September 02, 2018, 04:34:42 am... and I don't want to take a chance on doing something really wrong and making a mess of my system.  Don't say it can't happen, we all know it can. I say it can't happen. You are running the "svn" command as a normal user, not as root. By definition it cannot mess your whole OS. In the worst case scenario you mess the newly downloaded Lazarus sources. No big deal. Tweaking the OS package system with "sudo" however by definition messes your whole system. You should avoid it by any means if you worry about messing up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- henrique_cof · 2019-01-07 18:59 I would like to thank you, follow your tutorial and get install, thank you very much. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-02 03:59 After a fairly unproductive discussion with another new user (about installing on Linux) on a thread near here, I just browsed across the relevant wiki pages. Sigh... There is no lack of information, indeed I found ten pages on installing lazarus on Linux before I stopped counting. Some dating back to Ubuntu 10.04. Most generally accurate but not really helpful ! And, obviously, not being updated. I sure don't feel like updating them because its not clear what the overall structure is and anything I add will just add to the confusion. Been my experience that this is a normal thing to happen to any well used wiki ! This forum thread by Handoko does have most answers but, being a forum, is full of differing opinions and, dare I (?), occasional misleading statements. And asking a new user to read a 60 post thread ..... I suggest a restructure of the whole thing, its been a "back of my mind" project for some time and considering how drastic what I propose is, would not start until I have heard a few people say "good idea" ! What I'd do is replace (slowly) http://wiki.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus with and overview of the process, why so many models, why some are more appropriate for some uses etc. No platform specific data, nothing that goes out of date quickly. Then, 'under' that page, we'd have platform specific pages, MacOS, Linux, Windows, Other each with a reminder that a new user should read the first page before starting. I'd reuse much wiki data and, hopefully, eventually remove a few pages but just mark them legacy for now. I had a crack at Installing_Lazarus_on_MacOS_X in 2017, while it needs updating as we no longer need panic about gdb, its not a bad model. Much original data is still there, down under a Legacy heading, I'd be surprised if anyone has read that legacy content recently. As well as providing new users with an easy and welcoming env, we need to avoid content that is obviously out of date. Its a problem on any wiki but a bad signal to send .... Thoughts ?  Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2019-02-02 06:30 I saw the discussion you mentioned. People here are nice. But sometimes it isn't ended well, because of misunderstanding, miscommunication and OP impatient. Hope that won't discourage you to keep providing helps in this forum. About your suggestion to improve the wiki page for Lazarus installation, I agree. But I'm afraid it isn't easy. I wrote Installing Lazarus 1.8.0 on Ubuntu 17.10 on this forum, but later I found that's not longer working for Ubuntu 18.04, that's why I started this thread. I recommended to do version locking, but it still will become useless if user perform distro upgrade. That happened on me some weeks ago after I upgraded my system to Ubuntu Mate 18.10, my Lazarus won't start. I have no problem doing research and fixing it manually. After using Lazarus on Ubuntu for years, I found that the tricks that worked previously may not work on newer versions of Ubuntu. So I think on the beginning of the wiki page, we should show a warning that new users should avoid installing Lazarus on Ubuntu. That's not good, although Ubuntu reputation is not that high as before but it still has large user base. We still provide some workarounds but we need to mention they may not work on certain versions of Ubuntu. To make it worse, Ubuntu itself has many distributions. I still will use Ubuntu Mate, it's not the best but I'm okay with it. I'm now waiting for the release of the next version of Lazarus, so I will write an installation guide again. --edit-- The red colored text above should be: new users should avoid installing Lazarus on Ubuntu using deb files ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-02 07:27 Wow, Handoko, I must admit I am surprised at that. I have, over the last 12 months installed lots of working copies of Lazarus on a range of Linuxes, mostly VMs while trying to understand what Gnome has done to the SystemTrayIcon. That includes several Ubuntu flavours and versions. My model is to use distro's package manager to install FPC and SRC and then pull down Lazarus source with SVN and compile (make bigide). No problems generally. I believe that most people who do have problems download the binary kits from SourceForge and install with dpkg - as you and I know, that does not resolve dependencies. That compile model does not, of course put icons and menu entries in the right place ... And I still don't understand why the Gnome Developers hate SystemTrayIcons ! ;-) Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2019-02-02 08:34 Quote from: dbannon on February 02, 2019, 08:27:34 amMy model is to use distro's package manager to install FPC and SRC and then pull down Lazarus source with SVN and compile (make bigide). No problems generally. Did you meant you manually built your FPC? I install Lazarus and FPC using the deb files. Reason? Simple, because the download link at the left side of this forum suggests Ubuntu users to use the deb files. And that's the problem. The FPC installed using the deb files often conflicts with Ubuntu own repository. Me and most users pick the easiest. If you can simply download, click and install, why should we manually build it from the source using Terminal?! Maybe we should consider to remove the deb files if it often causes problems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2019-02-02 13:00 Quote from: Handoko on February 02, 2019, 09:34:29 amMaybe we should consider to remove the deb files if it often causes problems. Please, don't! I've been using Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros since 2006 and never had any problems with the "official" Lazarus debs; removing them would mean we'd have to "invent" other ways to install Lazarus as easily as now (when it works, it works!). Some (ok, maybe lots of) people have problems and those are who we hear from, but there are lots of others who simply install and done, and--of course--we don't hear about them. You'd leave them out in the cold by removing the DEBs. What is clear, and I agree with it, is that the wiki pages need a serious overhaul even if just to explain the why and what-for of the various ways of installing FPC/Lazarus. I think that's a very good idea you have, Davo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2019-02-02 14:25 Quote from: lucamar on February 02, 2019, 02:00:59 pmI've been using Ubuntu and other Debian-based distros since 2006 and never had any problems with the "official" Lazarus debs. But why me and some other users are having bad luck installing Lazarus on Ubuntu using the deb files? Generally, these are the issues that may happen when installing Lazarus on Ubuntu using the deb files: 1. Double clicking the deb files but nothing happens 2. Fails to install and it says dependency not satisfied 3. Able to install both FPC and Lazarus but the Lazarus won't run 4. Able to install and run Lazarus but it won't run after Ubuntu update/upgrade Synaptic version locking may solve issue #4 but I remember someone ever said it doesn't work on Kubuntu. And I'm sure it does not work to prevent distribution upgrade to replace the FPC with the one on its repository. I remember you ever posted your workaround, I haven't tried but will be sure to test it on the next Lazarus release. I think I should re- share your workaround: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41524.msg295276.h tml#msg295276 Also JuhaManninen's build from source installation instruction: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,42393.msg295887.h tml#msg295887 Similar but a bit different from dbannon: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41524.msg295226.h tml#msg295226 Workaround by bylaardt: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41333.msg287683.h tml#msg287683 And not forget garlar27's list of dependencies:  https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,41524.msg288242.h tml#msg288242 ~~off topic~~ Addition to garlars27's list: libssl-dev or libssl1.0-dev if you do secure network programminglibgles2-mesa-dev for developing modern 3D gameslibgtk2.0-dev, libncurses-dev to solve some compilation issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VTwin · 2019-02-02 15:22 I also ask that deb files not be removed, as it works fine for me. I have done quite a few successful installs on Ubuntu VMs using dpkg and the Lazarus deb files. Admittedly it took me a while to figure out, such as installing libgtk2.0-dev, not using the default package manager, and setting up shared media on VBox. I completely agree that it needs to be more straightforward. The next time I do a clean Ubuntu install (upgrading always seems problematic, so I create a new virtual disk each time), I'll write down all the steps in detail. Something like this though: Code: [Select]sudo apt-get -f install sudo apt-get install libgtk2.0-dev sudo dpkg -i *.deb cd /media sudo mount -t vboxsf PA01 sf_PA01 sudo usermod -aG vboxsf frederick ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2019-02-02 18:02 Handoko, most of the problems people have come about because they don't really know what they are doing. They just follow someone's instructions which may work in one machine but not quite the same way (or at all!) in another. Debian packaging and installation is quite complex; after all it was created at a time when to install anything you had to download the sources, configure, build and install, and it was meant to automate that. To avoid confronting the final user with this complexity is why there exist more or less standard "package managers": dpkg as the base-line and then dselect, apt, aptitude, synaptic, muon, etc.; and why it's recommended to use official repositories. That's also why I use a local repository to install Lazarus (and other things): It allows me to override the default repository packages with my own without more ado. It works and it works well, without version locking or any other special handling. As for distro upgrades, I never had any problems either. Of course, I've yet to find the situation where the distro has the same (but artificially upped) version of Lazarus/FPC that is installed; that may give problems, I guess ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-02 22:55 Quotebecause they don't really know what they are doing.I'm not sure thats right, I have seen people who plainly do have sufficient understanding get into trouble. I do think previous failed installs are an issue. And Handoko taught us about locking a version in apt, that was new to me and made a big difference. I also really don't think that, normally, an install is really complex.  I've used massive scripts to run auto installs of entire systems and, once debugged, reliable. Scripting is backbone of Unix. But I do agree with lucamar that that end users need to be able to understand whats happening, following blindly is a bad thing. QuoteI also ask that deb files not be removed,Totally agree. Pull down debs from sourceforge is probably second easiest and probably more useful than using all distro's package manager. I want to present users with a set of options so they can make informed choice. Quote1. Double clicking the deb files but nothing happens 2. Fails to install and it says dependency not satisfied 3. Able to install both FPC and Lazarus but the Lazarus won't run 4. Able to install and run Lazarus but it won't run after Ubuntu update/upgrade 1 and 2 are (perhaps) because gdebi or something similar is not installed / used. And dpkg is not a suitable tool for 'average' linux user IMHO. 3. Don't know ! Undocumented dependencies ? 4. Yeah, thats an issue for sure. Library issues, dependencies again. Only time I have seen that problem is U18.4 messed up the 32bit libraries I use for cross compiling. Had some bad symlinks that needed redoing. I acknowledge thats beyond average user to find. I prefer the DIY model for Lazarus because - 1. I usually have three or more versions of Lazarus installed. eg 184, Fixes, trunk 2. I like having lazarus and LCL in user space. While Lazarus is clever when rebuilding when write protected, it worries me. And I like being able to put (eg) debug line in LCL sometimes. 3. By taking Lazarus out of apt's reach, we avoid part of problem 4 that Handoko mentions. Because the compiler gets a good workout, probably helps with 3 too 4. Its easier IMHO. 5. It a very good test of dependencies. Debs depend on the author spotting all the likely dependencies that need be mentioned, build it yourself and it rubs you nose in any problem. I advise people wanting to build my project to follow https://github.com/tomboy-notes/tomboy-ng/wiki/Building-tomboy-ng  Its going to be stinking hot here today, I'll spend the day inside, might bring up a couple of VMs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-03 06:53 OK, I have just run three VM, all 64bit all Ubuntu, 17.10, 18.04, 18.10 with this script - Code: [Select]#!/usr/bin/bash TAG="fixes_2_0" for i in fpc fpc-src fpc-source subversion git; do     echo "---- Installing $i ------" sudo apt-get -y install "$i"; done mkdir -p $HOME/bin/Lazarus cd $HOME/bin/Lazarus svn checkout https://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/branches/"$TAG" cd "$TAG" make clean make bigide if [ ! -f lazbuild ]; then     echo "Sorry, build failed lazbuild not present, exiting..."     exit 1 fi echo "------------------------------------" echo "OK, you can now start Lazarus with -" echo "$HOME/bin/Lazarus/$TAG/lazarus" In each case all worked fine (17.10 delivered fpc302). Now, I would not suggest a new user run this script, there is far too much going on screen and no sanity checks. But it does prove that a Lazarus install this way is not really a problem. But remember, all three VMs were clean, new builds. So, I believe that when people have problems, its because of the system's history ??? Anyway, my point is that this approach deserves to be one of several we'll suggest. Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoran · 2019-02-03 12:10 Handoko, for completness, I would like to add the link to what I wrote once. It was written for Mint (I have used this way of installing for years on different versions of Mint), but I believe it works for Ubuntu the same: https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,35214.msg246573.h tml#msg246573 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2019-02-03 13:51 Good to know everyone shares their workaround here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-04 05:21 OK, I have drafted up a Installing_Lazarus_on_Linux page, comments and contributions are very welcome. I have not linked the page yet (except from my own page) - after a bit of a review, I might look at just what Linux content can be removed from Installing_Lazarus if we decide to use my new page. Please see http://wiki.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus_on_Linux Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2019-02-04 05:57 That's look good. But maybe you should mention: Ubuntu users can use Ubuntu Software Center. It is the easiest, just click and wait, no need to deal with the Terminal.Ubuntu is slow to update its repository for Lazarus, the version provided usually is not the latest stable version of Lazarus.User can manually download and install the latest version but it usually may cause conflict with Ubuntu own repository. Several workarounds are available. Actually installing Lazarus on Ubuntu is very easy. As long as you don't mind to use the version provided by Ubuntu, which usually is outdated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-04 06:12 Yep, I just say "Package Manager" - do you think I need be specific ? I ask because I personally dont use USC, I prefer Synaptic, its always the very first thing I install. Every distro has its own "package manager" - I'd like to be general where we can but not at the risk of clarity..... Yes, I think we should make it clearer that the distro packages are always suspect from a currency view. Your third point is one we need to drill down on. My tests show using fpc form Ubuntu is fine with both SourceForge and built from src Lazarus. Have you seen otherwise ? Or do you mean using (eg) Ubuntu Lazarus with SourceForge FPC ?  I'd consider that very brave, would not advise that at all. And maybe its why my favourite model, building Lazuras from source  works well ? Then, apt does not know about Lazarus at all, so no repository conflicts possible ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2019-02-04 06:23 I checked the wiki page and I didn't see you mentioned Ubuntu Software Center. My point is: Newbies (Ubuntu users) who don't know much about using Linux should try the easiest first. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-05 10:42 OK, Handoko, I have put in more about GUI package managers.  And test script for fpc and some example command lines for  redhat sort of people. I've not tested any of this on a redhat system, any Centos, Fedora or RedHat users out there ?? http://wiki.freepascal.org/Installing_Lazarus_on_Linux Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-06 10:00 Hmm, so, timing ! I have rewritten that HowTo given todays new release. The change of name of the fpc in SourceForge, means mix and match distro and sourceforge is no longer possible on Debian based things. And, maybe is not a good idea on eg RPM based system ? Good outcome is the HowTo is now heaps simpler and shorter. What is not dealt with is dist upgrades ?? davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VTwin · 2019-02-22 14:10 Thanks for the work on wiki davo. Just a note on my recent install on Ubuntu in case it is helpful to someone. I downloaded: fpc-laz_3.0.4-1_amd64.deb fpc-src_3.0.4-2_amd64.deb lazarus-project_2.0.0-0_amd64.deb and put them in a folder. Then navigated to the folder in the Terminal (type "cd " and then you can drag the folder to the terminal to insert the full path). On Ubuntu, I need to install libgtk2.0-dev to solve dependencies. The following did the trick for me: # fix any dependency errors sudo apt-get -f install # install libgtk2.0-dev & lazarus sudo apt-get install libgtk2.0-dev sudo dpkg -i *.deb Cheers, VTwin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-02-26 01:14 Thanks VTwin, Quote and then you can drag the folder to the terminal to insert the full path). ?? Over 30 years of using Linux and I did not know that ! Thanks QuoteI need to install libgtk2.0-dev to solve dependencies. Now, I want to be really sure here. You did not use gdebi to install the Lazarus/FPC packages, instead you used dpkg ?    (gdebi would, I am pretty sure, have resolved the dependencies automatically) but dpkg did tell you there were unresolved dependencies and specifically named libgtk2+   ? I am surprised there was only one dependency missing. IIRC there used to be a long list of build tools needed by fpc. Anyway, you confirm my thought that much of the problems people have had in the past installing from packages on Linux was due to the packages not knowing their own dependencies, thats now fixed. And thats a good thing ! Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoran · 2019-02-26 09:53 Quote from: dbannon on February 26, 2019, 02:14:25 amThanks VTwin, Quote and then you can drag the folder to the terminal to insert the full path). ?? Over 30 years of using Linux and I did not know that ! Thanks Neither did I know that, thanks for a useful tip! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- lucamar · 2019-02-26 10:33 Quote from: dbannon on February 26, 2019, 02:14:25 amQuote and then you can drag the folder to the terminal to insert the full path). ?? Over 30 years of using Linux and I did not know that ! Thanks In case you didn't know either, there's no need to drag (if you prefer kbd operation): just "copy" the folder/file with Ctrl+C and "paste" it to the terminal with Shift+Ctrl+V Works even with multiple folder/file names ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Handoko · 2019-02-26 10:42 Quote from: VTwin on February 22, 2019, 03:10:31 pmThen navigated to the folder in the Terminal (type "cd " and then you can drag the folder to the terminal to insert the full path). I never knew it. But I usually use right clicking on the folder and then select "Open in Terminal". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- guest63388 · 2019-09-04 21:38 How to install Lazarus Free Pascal on Linux Ubuntu, Mint and Lite. Problems and Solutions. This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C0oji_zQ-c Installing Lazarus on Linux Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. Installing Lazarus on Linux Mint 19.01. Installing Lazarus on Linux Lite 18.04. Fetha Tutoriais: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC00iLRuOPnsKLXHCmOJWHDQ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 440bx · 2019-09-04 22:34 Quote from: dbannon on February 26, 2019, 02:14:25 am?? Over 30 years of using Linux and I did not know that ! Thanks It cannot be over 30 years.  In 1989, Linux was about 2 years away from making its first appearance on usenet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- winni · 2019-09-04 23:04 First linux version 0.01 was autum 1991. The great debate with Andrew S. Tanenbaum was 1992. Christmas 1992 version 0.99 was released. The pre 1.0 versions were really an adventure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2019-09-05 00:06 Quote from: 440bx on September 05, 2019, 12:34:08 amQuote from: dbannon on February 26, 2019, 02:14:25 am?? Over 30 years of using Linux and I did not know that ! Thanks It cannot be over 30 years.  In 1989, Linux was about 2 years away from making its first appearance on usenet. Hmm, sorry, careless wording. I should have said "unix" or  "*nix". While I started using computers with VMX, I soon progressed to Ultrix, OSF and then True64 on the Dec/Compaq Supercomputers.  I used something called Coherent, maybe 1985 or 1986 - that was the first Unix like OS I used running on PC hardware. Maybe we could consider that as one of many fore runners to Linux ? Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 440bx · 2019-09-05 00:29 Quote from: dbannon on September 05, 2019, 02:06:56 amHmm, sorry, careless wording. Davo No problem.  I'm often guilty of, let's say, casual wording myself.  I only pointed it out to ensure no one would be left with the mistaken impression that Linux was actually that old.  If the word "over" had not been there, I would not have mentioned it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- munair · 2021-09-04 14:05 Quote from: 440bx on September 05, 2019, 02:29:53 amQuote from: dbannon on September 05, 2019, 02:06:56 amHmm, sorry, careless wording. Davo I only pointed it out to ensure no one would be left with the mistaken impression that Linux was actually that old. Over 30 years would legitimately bring you to 1990 or earlier. Given the first release of Linux in 1991, it actually is almost that old. This is apart from the fact that the first distributions came out in 1992, which weren't even useful for a production desktop at the time. Point being, 30 years don't really give a mistaken impression about the age of Linux. It does give a mistaken impression about the GNU/Linux operating systems or distro's that could actually be used in production environments. Even SuSE version 6.4 in 1998 was a pain to install because it required manual selection of dependencies against 'unsatisfied' error messages (don't remind me). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MarkMLl · 2021-09-04 14:17 Quote from: dbannon on September 05, 2019, 02:06:56 amHmm, sorry, careless wording. I should have said "unix" or  "*nix". While I started using computers with VMX, I soon progressed to Ultrix, OSF and then True64 on the Dec/Compaq Supercomputers.  I used something called Coherent, maybe 1985 or 1986 - that was the first Unix like OS I used running on PC hardware. Maybe we could consider that as one of many fore runners to Linux ? Perhaps these days we should describe those as "Linux-like OSes" :-) I remember Coherent, and was actually referring to its manual until comparatively recently on account of the usefulness of its permuted index. MarkMLl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- winni · 2021-09-04 16:01 Quote from: munair on September 04, 2021, 04:05:54 pm Over 30 years would legitimately bring you to 1990 or earlier. Given the first release of Linux in 1991, it actually is almost that old. This is apart from the fact that the first distributions came out in 1992, which weren't even useful for a production desktop at the time. Point being, 30 years don't really give a mistaken impression about the age of Linux. It does give a mistaken impression about the GNU/Linux operating systems or distro's that could actually be used in production environments. Even SuSE version 6.4 in 1998 was a pain to install because it required manual selection of dependencies against 'unsatisfied' error messages (don't remind me). Hi! You did not need a Linux distro in those days. You could download it all and compile it by yourself.  The days when computing was an adventure. It was boring to install Slackware because it came on 14 (??)  floppy disks. Most time you were a diskjockey. So what a joy when Suse 4.3  appeared in 1996. And so easy to install related to Slackware. The only trouble was my Diamond graphic card. Until a chinese man send  the driver source. Without any words. Winni ---------------------------------------------------------------------- winni · 2021-09-04 16:18 Quote from: dbannon on September 05, 2019, 02:06:56 amWhile I started using computers with VMX, I soon progressed to Ultrix, OSF and then True64 on the Dec/Compaq Supercomputers.  I used something called Coherent, maybe 1985 or 1986 - that was the first Unix like OS I used running on PC hardware. Maybe we could consider that as one of many fore runners to Linux ? Davo Hi! Coherent started to get a little famous in the early 90s with version 4.0. It needed an Intel 386 and was a realy multiuser system (3 users). But parallel was the development of Linux. Coherent lost the race because * In Germany the wanted 100,- Marks - Linux was free * They had no TCP/IP * The had no  X11 system * Related to Linux their development was slow Some years later Coherent was bankrupt. I those days every major company wanted to have their own Unix: AIX (IBM) , Xenix (Microsoft), Sinix (Siemens), HP-UX (HP), ..... Winni ---------------------------------------------------------------------- munair · 2021-09-04 18:45 Quote from: winni on September 04, 2021, 06:18:03 pmI those days every major company wanted to have their own Unix: AIX (IBM) , Xenix (Microsoft), Sinix (Siemens), HP-UX (HP), ..... IBM already set their cards on the development of OS/2 Warp which to my knowledge became the first true 32bit multitasking OS. But they weren't that good at marketing so Windows 95 became the hit while still 16bit DOS at the heart. No matter, any distro with a linux kernel at the time was still light years behind and only gained real traction in the early 2000s when Gnome and KDE became more mature desktops. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- winni · 2021-09-04 20:20 Hi! You should have  enough knowledge to not mix up things: The first real 32 bit systems where Unix, VMS and Linux. Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed. You could run BSD 4.2 on low cost midrange machines with a Motorola 680x0. Example: Stride 400 series with 16 or 32 ASCII-Teminals. The most exspensive part was the BSD license. And on the other hand: There were cheap machines beside the Apples with a graphic Desktop: Atari ST and Amiga. 5 years before Windows 3.1 and even more before OS/2  (OS half). The Atari survied a long time in the music buisiness because of the Midi ability. Last time I saw a lot of them: 2005. In a 19" rack on stage. And a lot of Amigas were busy at that time in a local TV station because of the video abilities. KDE and Gnome are  these morbid tries to become a better desktop than Windows. And when a version seems to run then the next generation starts produce the newest version, which is full of faults. There are enough  slim desktops and if you have understood Linux you use the half time a console. And the other time a browser. Winni ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred vS · 2021-09-04 20:35 Quote from: winni on September 04, 2021, 10:20:23 pm... Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed. ... And still living. People have announced his death for decades, that Wayland is the future but X11 is still there and Wayland is still unstable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- winni · 2021-09-04 21:21 Hi! Yes the only answer to Wayland can be: Don't touch it. A typical answer in the KDE board: Code: Text  [Select][+][-]window.onload = function(){var x1 = document.getElementById("main_content_section"); if (x1) { var x = document.getElementsByClassName("geshi");for (var i = 0; i Maintainer: KDE Team * Not implemented for wayland windows, rules only work for X11 ones* Sounds like a plasmashell crash or freeze, please report the bug* Known bug  Since years the same answers. Winni ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dbannon · 2021-09-05 05:00 I think Wayland is driven by applying the "its old, so it must be replaced" rule to X11. Most of the performance measures in favour of Wayland compare todays Wayland to X11 as it was back when the Wayland project started. If you factor in how X11 now diverts many calls via XCB, its probably just as fast. I personally don't understand the security aspects that Wayland claims. I guess Wayland, being more modern code, might end up easier to maintain. And, to be fair, Wayland on newest release Fedora and Ubuntu does seem to work better (mainly by dropping back to an X11 layer). And Coherent ?  The very best thing about it by far was the great manual it came with. So much easier than the info command. I don't remember what I paid for it but it could not have been too much, money was pretty scarce back then... Davo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- munair · 2021-09-05 07:50 Quote from: winni on September 04, 2021, 10:20:23 pmThe first real 32 bit systems where Unix, VMS and Linux. Noboday needed a desktop in those days but anyway X11 was developed. To be clear, I'm taking about full blown desktop operating systems, not command line interpreters and such. VMS was for minicomputers only. "Linux" wasn't an operating system; it was the development of a kernel built from scratch, modeled after Unix. The earliest distro's were attempts to build an OS around the Linux kernel, incomparable to Unix and OS/2 at the time. The first more mature desktop OSs with a Linux kernel didn't arrive until the late 90s. I'm not 100% familiar with the history of 32 bits Unix, but I do know that Unix and OS/2 were competing from the very beginning with regards to 32 bits capabilities. I used OS/2 at the time, and yes, there definitely was the need for a graphical desktop or Apple, IBM and Microsoft wouldn't put so much effort in the late 70s and 80s in developing a graphical UI to make things so much easier for office and graphical industry use. Anyway, Wikipedia confirms the competition between Unix and OS/2 32 bits capabilities, as we can read: "the introduction of the 32-bit Intel 80386, caused Unix to "explode" in popularity for business applications; Xenix, 386/ix, and other Unix systems for the PC- compatible market competed with OS/2 in terms of networking, multiuser support, multitasking, and MS-DOS compatibility." QuoteAtari ST and Amiga. 5 years before Windows 3.1 and even more before OS/2  (OS half). Are you talking about GUI or 32 bits development? Because Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was just a graphical shell over a 16 bits OS. The very first to develop a GUI I think was Xerox in the early 70s. But that's quite a leap to the 32 bits desktop OSs of the early and mid 90s. If I'm not mistaken, none of the computers at the time such as the Motorala 68k in the late 70s were 100% 32 bits capable as they still had 16 bit data bus addressing. It wasn't until 1985-1986 with the introduction of the 386DX (which were very expensive at the time) that OSs could be developed to fully run in protected mode allowing 4GB memory adressing. Even in 1995 I could tell the difference between OS/2 and Win95 desktop/multi-tasking performance. OS/2 was clearly superior and much more stable. But IBM wasn't good at marketing and as a result the three main desktop OSs in use since the late 90s are Mac, Linux and Windows. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- munair · 2021-09-05 08:04 Quote from: Fred vS on September 04, 2021, 10:35:40 pmPeople have announced his death for decades, that Wayland is the future but X11 is still there and Wayland is still unstable. I just installed Manjaro 21 with Gnome the other day. It is my very first experience with Gnome since version 2.32 because I never liked the Gnome 3 concept. It's also my first experience with Wayland and so far it seems pretty stable, but I haven't thoroughly tested it yet with doing graphical stuff.