In our previous episode, Bernd said:
> >
> > That makes sense, but you are in a wrong branch then.
>
> I wanted to switch down one gear, not two. What would be the correct
> 2.6 stabilizing/soon-to-become-stable branch if this is the wrong one?
2.6.0rc1 is the newest there is on the 2.6 branches.
In our previous episode, Bernd said:
> > If
> > people are so easily confused, they should stay away from development
> > branches.
>
> This is supposed to be a stable branch
Only after 2.6.0. Though the situation is not really different for a .2 or
.4 release, only shorter.
> and there is no ne
Bernd schrieb:
I wanted to switch down one gear, not two. What would be the correct
2.6 stabilizing/soon-to-become-stable branch if this is the wrong one?
As far as I understand it, versions with odd digits after the decimal
point are "unstable" and even numbers are "stable". So the stable
>> and I finally decided to change down a gear and stay with the
>> latest stable branch for a while.
>
> That makes sense, but you are in a wrong branch then.
I wanted to switch down one gear, not two. What would be the correct
2.6 stabilizing/soon-to-become-stable branch if this is the wrong one
On 26 Nov 11, at 18:17, Bernd wrote:
> 2011/11/25 Marco van de Voort :
> > If
> > people are so easily confused, they should stay away from development
> > branches.
>
> This is supposed to be a stable branch and there is no need for
> personal attacks.
No, it will become a new stable branch once
2011/11/25 Marco van de Voort :
> If
> people are so easily confused, they should stay away from development
> branches.
This is supposed to be a stable branch and there is no need for
personal attacks.
> Specially since fixes_2_6 is an exact copy of RC1 except for the
> version, so there is no r
In our previous episode, Bernd said:
> >> The branch fixes_2_6 still has the version 2.5.1. shouldn't this be
> >> set to 2.6.0-RC1.1?
> >
> > No. Only releases have even version numbers (RC or not).
>
> Thats why I wrote RC1.1 to solve this dilemma, to give it an odd
> number between RC1 and RC2.
On 24/11/2011, Bernd wrote:
> number than the already released release candidate itself. Thats the
> main thing that is so confusing about it. It also leads to the
> necessity to modify the tag after tagging which is considered bad
> practice.
Don't worry, you are not alone. I also find this way
On 24 Nov 2011, at 18:14, Bernd wrote:
> Yes, I understand the intention. But this leads to the dilemma that
> now the branch which is by definition always same or more advanced
> than the last release(candidate) from it still has a *lower* version
> number than the already released release candi
2011/11/24 Sven Barth :
> It's not about the RCx, but about the 2.6.0.
Yes, I understand the intention. But this leads to the dilemma that
now the branch which is by definition always same or more advanced
than the last release(candidate) from it still has a *lower* version
number than the already
Am 24.11.2011 17:52, schrieb Bernd:
2011/11/24 Jonas Maebe:
The branch fixes_2_6 still has the version 2.5.1. shouldn't this be
set to 2.6.0-RC1.1?
No. Only releases have even version numbers (RC or not).
Thats why I wrote RC1.1 to solve this dilemma, to give it an odd
number between RC1 an
2011/11/24 Jonas Maebe :
>> The branch fixes_2_6 still has the version 2.5.1. shouldn't this be
>> set to 2.6.0-RC1.1?
>
> No. Only releases have even version numbers (RC or not).
Thats why I wrote RC1.1 to solve this dilemma, to give it an odd
number between RC1 and RC2.
On 24 Nov 2011, at 12:06, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
Isn't it possible to put all processors in the compiler.
In theory, that would be possible with lots of rewriting. In practice
there is little or no reason to spend time on that. You can always use
"fpc -Pi386" and "fpc -Parm" to call the
On 24 Nov 2011, at 10:46, Bernd wrote:
The branch fixes_2_6 still has the version 2.5.1. shouldn't this be
set to 2.6.0-RC1.1?
No. Only releases have even version numbers (RC or not). Branches are
only updated to the next version number (in this case, that will be
2.6.1) once the correspo
Isn't it possible to put all processors in the compiler.
At least ARM and 8086 because they are the most popular.
As I know now it is one compiler program each processor.
Just a question.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://
I have a question about the structure of the svn.
The branch fixes_2_6 still has the version 2.5.1. shouldn't this be
set to 2.6.0-RC1.1? to indicate that this is always the newest 2.6.x
version (newer than any 2.6 release or candidate ever released from
this branch) and as such already newer than
Am 06.11.11 00:27, schrieb Marco van de Voort:
Hello,
We have placed the first release-candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler
version 2.6.0 on our ftp-servers.
You can help improve the upcoming 2.6.0 release by downloading and
testing this release. If you want you can report what you have done h
On 06.11.2011 00:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
We have placed the first release-candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler
version 2.6.0 on our ftp-servers.
You can help improve the upcoming 2.6.0 release by downloading and
testing this release. If you want you can report what you have done here:
htt
On 05/11/11 23:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Hello,
We have placed the first release-candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler
version 2.6.0 on our ftp-servers.
You can help improve the upcoming 2.6.0 release by downloading and
testing this release. If you want you can report what you have done her
Hi,
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:14:42 +0100
> Von: Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
> An: FPC-Pascal users discussions
> Betreff: Re: [fpc-pascal] Free Pascal 2.6.0rc1 released
> Hello,
>
> What is: fpc-2.6.0rc1.arm-linux.tar
> ?
>
Hello,
What is: fpc-2.6.0rc1.arm-linux.tar
?
Is it supposed to run on arm-linux or is it a cross-compiler x86-linux
-> arm-linux?
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/ma
I am happy to say that the RPM can now be installed cleanly in Mageia
Linux (and therefore I suppose that in Mandriva and PCLinuxOS too),
thats to the clever fix by Joost. Thanks a lot =)
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pa
On 07 Nov 2011, at 23:27, Peter wrote:
Does this release include intrinsic ROL & ROR?
'Bug' 6300 is shown as fixed, but I can find no mention in the new
features list.
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=6300
I've added it to the wiki page.
Jonas
_
Yes, RolByte/Word/Dword/QWord are implemented in 2.6.0rc1.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Peter wrote:
> HI,
>
> Does this release include intrinsic ROL & ROR?
> 'Bug' 6300 is shown as fixed, but I can find no mention in the new features
> list.
>
> http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=6300
>
HI,
Does this release include intrinsic ROL & ROR?
'Bug' 6300 is shown as fixed, but I can find no mention in the new
features list.
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=6300
On 05/11/11 23:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Hello,
We have placed the first release-candidate of the Free Pas
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
When I now try to compile a short test program with the IDE I get:
"Error: Illegal parameter: -Cp386"
This was a setting I used before. Has this been changed?
When I remove this parameter and try again I get:
"Fatal: Unable to open file D:\vpascal\FreePascal\fp.cfg"
"
In our previous episode, J?rgen Hestermann said:
> > version 2.6.0 on our ftp-servers.
>
> Here some issues I found:
>
> The text mode IDE states under "Help": Copyright (C) 1998-2009 by...
> Shouldn't this be "1998-2011"?
I will correct that.
> When I now try to compile a short test progra
On 06 Nov 2011, at 11:56, Tommi Prami wrote:
> On 6.11.2011 1:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> Details about these new features can be found at
>> http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_New_Features_2.6.0
>
> Seems that Freepascal Wiki is not available. If someone can access it post
> the information o
On 6.11.2011 1:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Hello,
We have placed the first release-candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler
version 2.6.0 on our ftp-servers.
You can help improve the upcoming 2.6.0 release by downloading and
testing this release. If you want you can report what you have done her
In our previous episode, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara said:
> >
> > ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/
>
> Cant download
>
> 550 /pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/: Permission denied.
Fixed.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.o
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
> We have placed the first release-candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler
> version 2.6.0 on our ftp-servers.
Here some issues I found:
The text mode IDE states under "Help": Copyright (C) 1998-2009 by...
Shouldn't this be "1998-2011"?
When I now try to compile a
06.11.2011 3:47, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara пишет:
On 5/11/2011 20:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Downloads are available at the FTP server at:
ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/
Cant download
550 /pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/: Permission denied.
Luiz
At 04:47 PM 11/5/2011, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote:
On 5/11/2011 20:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Downloads are available at the FTP server at:
ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/
Cant download
550 /pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/: Permission denied.
ditto... :-(
Ralf
_
2011/11/5 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara :
> On 5/11/2011 20:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>
>> Downloads are available at the FTP server at:
>>
>> ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/
>
> Cant download
>
> 550 /pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/: Permission denied.
>
> Luiz
x(
http://imagebin.or
On 5/11/2011 20:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Downloads are available at the FTP server at:
ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/
Cant download
550 /pub/fpc/beta/2.6.0-rc1/: Permission denied.
Luiz
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pasca
Hello,
We have placed the first release-candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler
version 2.6.0 on our ftp-servers.
You can help improve the upcoming 2.6.0 release by downloading and
testing this release. If you want you can report what you have done here:
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Testers_2.6.0
Ch
36 matches
Mail list logo
