Re: winff fails to build on Armel: unit path of lazarus points to 0.9.30 i.s.o. 0.9.30.2

2012-01-18 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Hector et al. >> Arm: 4) Can somebody help me by trying the build on an other machine? If >> not this list, who should I ask to try the build on an other armel buildd? > > I tried to build your package on abel.d.o (armel porterbox), I can > reduce the failure to: Unfortunately winff can not b

Re: winff fails to build on Armel: unit path of lazarus points to 0.9.30 i.s.o. 0.9.30.2

2012-01-18 Thread Hector Oron
Hello, 2012/1/14 Paul Gevers : > So basically my questions are: > Abou: 1) Where do the the paths get set for the units, as I believe I > don't set them in my package (as on all other architectures there are no > problems at all). > Abou: 2) Do you have any idea how to solve this problem (in Lazar

Re: winff fails to build on Armel: unit path of lazarus points to 0.9.30 i.s.o. 0.9.30.2

2012-01-16 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:46:32PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: >Hi Abou and debian-arm readers, > >Thanks for the responses. > >On 16-01-12 16:09, Abou Al Montacir wrote: >> Unless you precise a path in your project, this is taken from >> ~/.lazarus/environmentoptions.xml and if not found from >> /et

Re: winff fails to build on Armel: unit path of lazarus points to 0.9.30 i.s.o. 0.9.30.2

2012-01-16 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Abou and debian-arm readers, Thanks for the responses. On 16-01-12 16:09, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > Unless you precise a path in your project, this is taken from > ~/.lazarus/environmentoptions.xml and if not found from > /etc/lazarus/environmentoptions.xml which is handled using alternatives

winff fails to build on Armel: unit path of lazarus points to 0.9.30 i.s.o. 0.9.30.2

2012-01-14 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Abou and debian-arm readers, I am writing to you because my package Winff, which uses the FreePascal compiler, fails to build on armel buildserver ancina [1]. As far as I can deduce from the build log [2], there is a problem with the paths created for the compiler, which I believe is sensibly o