[Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#985946: patch proposal

Abou Al Montacir abou.almontacir at sfr.fr
Mon Nov 29 19:43:10 GMT 2021

Hi David,

On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 14:43 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
> Hi Paul, Abou,
> I could only find one end user complaining about this issue on the
> Lazarus Forum (although from memory, there were more). 
I think we would have notcied them if there are so many users complaining about
> Often, people who ask on the forum are advised to install Lazarus from
> source, either directly or using a tool called  fpcupdeluxe. Thats for
> a number of reasons including Lazarus's relatively short release cycle,
> having Lazarus in user space makes cross compiling and debugging a
> great deal easier and, I suspect, a touch of confusion arrising from
> the large number of individual packages that make make up a Lazarus
> install in the Debian Repos.
Our task is to invert this and make people use official Debian packages. However
this is quite difficult, but we manage at least to keep Lazarus bugs count tiny
compared to other packages.
> Further, uses can download deb packages, prepared by the Lazarus
> developers, that also address some of the above issues.
This is an option, but the everything in one deb approach is not compatible with
Debian policy.
> So, its hard to tell how many Lazarus uses get their Lazarus from
> Debian Repos. On the other hand, building a Lazarus app for Debian
> definitely requires the Debian Lazarus and fortunately, that is not
> affected by this bug.
There are still a few users getting from us.[1]
> I suspect a few, casual users will be put off using it, its quite a
> threatening error message. Unfortunately, it looks like what happens
> when  multiple Lazarus version use the same config files, the forum and
> wiki have clear warning there NOT to manually edit version.inc and for
> good reason.
I still don't understand why someone should edit version.inc manually.
> Considering that Bullseye will be with us for some time now, I do think
> its quite a disruptive bug.
Yes, but people generally use backports to cope with that.
> On the other hand, if considerable effort is required to fix it in
> Bullseye, maybe it would a good idea to wait for Lazarus 2.2.0 ?  Its
> been in release candidate mode for 4 months now and cannot too far away
No, it is just that there are still some FTBFS on ppc64el that we need to cope
with lie [2].

[1] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=lazarus
[2] https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/ppc64el/l/lazarus/17102456/log.gz

Abou Al Montacir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20211129/fe6e7ae3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20211129/fe6e7ae3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-pascal-devel mailing list