LazActiveX, and trunk versions lazarus / 5-Lazarus Extra Components ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TristamShandy · 2013-08-28 00:55 I thought after posting on another thread that this was more appropriate for my chosen topic. LazActiveX is not in my fresh copy of 1.0.12 for Windows 64-bit, although http://wiki.freepascal.org/LazActiveX mentions it. I have also heard some mention of a "trunk version" of Lazarus where it is rumored to reside. What does that mean, and where can I get such a version, what is the version number of this beast, and can it run in Windows 7? Kind regards Paul King ---------------------------------------------------------------------- taazz · 2013-08-28 07:17 here is the trunk version of lazactivex. Download it and install it. http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk/components/activex/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BigChimp · 2013-08-28 09:43 Quote from: TristamShandy on August 28, 2013, 02:55:28 amLazActiveX is not in my fresh copy of 1.0.12 for Windows 64-bit, although http://wiki.freepascal.org/LazActiveX mentions it. No it doesn't. QuoteCurrent stable Lazarus (1.0.10) does not include this package So.... either the stable version of Lazarus is 1.0.10 or the wiki page hasn't been updated. I suspect [1] it's the former.oops, more coffee: latter. Just to get rid of any possible confusion on the matter, I'll strip out the "1.0.10".... I'll throw in the URL to the trunk code as well. Then I'll go back to my corner and grumble some more about people not reading properly these days, the good old days when printed and bound manuals really *were* printed and bound manuals etc Edit: oh: trunk version of (FPC or Lazarus) is the development version in the "trunk" of the subversion tree. Lazarus trunk is generally quite stable actually. The trunk is branched now and then - basically a snapshot is taken - stamped with a version number and given out (e.g. Laz 1.0). Then fixes for bugs found are backported from trunk to a "fixes" branch (or implemented directly in the fixes branch) and finally released as a fixes release (e.g. 1.0.2, 1.0.12). I'm sure there must be some article on the Laz wiki detailing this practice but too lazy to go look [1] Ok, I cheated: I *know* because I wrote that warning after people had been complaining about missing LazActiveX in their Laz 1.0.10 installs... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TristamShandy · 2013-08-28 11:19 Thanks for your help. I'll see what I can do with the source from svn. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2013-08-28 12:34 Quote from: BigChimp on August 28, 2013, 11:43:01 am Edit: oh: trunk version of (FPC or Lazarus) is the development version in the "trunk" of the subversion tree. Lazarus trunk is generally quite stable actually. The trunk is branched now and then - basically a snapshot is taken - stamped with a version number and given out (e.g. Laz 1.0). Then fixes for bugs found are backported from trunk to a "fixes" branch (or implemented directly in the fixes branch) and finally released as a fixes release (e.g. 1.0.2, 1.0.12). I'm sure there must be some article on the Laz wiki detailing this practice but too lazy to go look Is there a picture like http://www.freepascal.org/pic/timeline.png for Lazarus? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BigChimp · 2013-08-28 15:27 @marcov: There used to be something like that around the time 1.0 was realized (in nice ASCII art), on a Roadmap to 1.0 or similar wiki page. Apart from that: I'm sure your wiki searching skills are as good as mine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2013-08-28 18:49 Quote from: BigChimp on August 28, 2013, 05:27:12 pm@marcov: There used to be something like that around the time 1.0 was realized (in nice ASCII art), on a Roadmap to 1.0 or similar wiki page. Apart from that: I'm sure your wiki searching skills are as good as mine You prove my point. If you can't regurgitate the url on short notice, what chance does a newbie have? There is a reason why the FPC one is on the FAQ page, and not in the wiki ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BigChimp · 2013-08-29 07:59 Quote from: marcov on August 28, 2013, 08:49:06 pmYou prove my point. If you can't regurgitate the url on short notice, what chance does a newbie have? There is a reason why the FPC one is on the FAQ page, and not in the wiki I could tell you what I'm regurgitating now but I want to keep things more or less civil. Your English or reading comprehension skills don't seem to be up to scratch: I explicitly mentioned I *didn't want to* look up that page. I thought you were looking for that page in order to help others so decided to quickly post some hints in case you couldn't find it. In hindsight, I should have probably not posted at all... Regardless, you didn't even bother to try and look up the page yourself. Instead you're "proving points" not based on the objective content/matter under discussion but on subjective (my) behaviour - while I didn't even know there was a point to be made. The ASCII art diagram is still there BTW, on a very obvious page detailing the development process, linked from the Lazarus documentation page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2013-08-29 19:55 Quote from: BigChimp on August 29, 2013, 09:59:41 amQuote from: marcov on August 28, 2013, 08:49:06 pmYou prove my point. If you can't regurgitate the url on short notice, what chance does a newbie have? There is a reason why the FPC one is on the FAQ page, and not in the wiki I could tell you what I'm regurgitating now but I want to keep things more or less civil. Your English or reading comprehension skills don't seem to be up to scratch: I explicitly mentioned I *didn't want to* look up that page. I thought you were looking for that page in order to help others so decided to quickly post some hints in case you couldn't find it. In hindsight, I should have probably not posted at all... I didn't look up the page, because that was beside the point. I didn't need the info itself, its location was under discussion,  and I knew it was not in an in-your-face, easy to refer page. To remain constructive, I had a look and I'll rest my case with three observations: - First, it is in a "development process" section. Not the first place for a beginner to look. - Second, I updated for the last four releases - Third, it is a third level page (main->wiki->Lazarus development process). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BigChimp · 2013-08-30 06:23 Quote from: marcov on August 29, 2013, 09:55:42 pm- First, it is in a "development process" section. Not the first place for a beginner to look. If you have a better place for it, of course you can edit it. I myself think putting it in the Laz FAQ might overload it - but perhaps it's time to clean out some other cruft in the FAQ page. Quote from: marcov on August 29, 2013, 09:55:42 pm- Second, I updated for the last four releases QuoteThanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2013-08-30 09:06 Quote from: BigChimp on August 30, 2013, 08:23:58 amQuote from: marcov on August 29, 2013, 09:55:42 pm- First, it is in a "development process" section. Not the first place for a beginner to look. If you have a better place for it, of course you can edit it. I myself think putting it in the Laz FAQ might overload it - but perhaps it's time to clean out some other cruft in the FAQ page. Or move long topics in the faq to own pages. This might also be such page. But the FAQ has a section on FPC versioning, and not about Lazarus versioning. Strange. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bart · 2013-08-30 21:30 I added a small topic to the faq which then links to the Version Numbering page of the wiki. Bart