Somehow I have managed to mess-up my previously working version of CodeBlocks (from pasgui's repository). I have tried reinstalling several times but I keep getting the message:
codeblocks: relocation error: /usr/lib/libcodeblocks.so.0: symbol _Z18wxSafeConvertWX2MBPKw, version WXU_2.8 not defined in file libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0 with link time reference
What on earth have done? And how do I fix this?
(Using Ubuntu Lucid)
Somehow I have managed to mess-up my previously working version of CodeBlocks (from pasgui's repository). I have tried reinstalling several times but I keep getting the message:
codeblocks: relocation error: /usr/lib/libcodeblocks.so.0: symbol _Z18wxSafeConvertWX2MBPKw, version WXU_2.8 not defined in file libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0 with link time reference
What on earth have done? And how do I fix this?
(Using Ubuntu Lucid)
I mentioned something like this on a message called "News on installing under Ubuntu". Since you are using pasgui's version, it probably means you are using Lucid's buit-in wx libs. An update yesterday to the wx libs made them incompatible with pasgui's version, but now they are compatible with the last nightly from jen's repo.
Ken
If I understand correctly what Ken has posted, you do not need the libs from apt.wxwidgets.org any longer.
The nightlies are normally not less stable, but may have some new features and/or bugs fixed.
... you do not need the libs from apt.wxwidgets.org any longer.
Is this an oversight or is it to be taken literally?
If this is so, can the message at the bottom of http://www.codeblocks.org/downloads/26 be updated so as not to confuse others.
(This problem with a continually shifting set of lib requirements is a real pain! Is there really no way round having your codeblocks installation break every 6 months and having to hunt for the new libs?)
(This problem with a continually shifting set of lib requirements is a real pain! Is there really no way round having your codeblocks installation break every 6 months and having to hunt for the new libs?)
Ask the ubuntu-maintainers who provide these packages.
Maybe they can backport the lucid packages to karmic.
Is anyone able to provide instructions for resolving this issue within the Package Manager?What you experience it exactly the reason for me NOT to use Linux as my main platform. So - from my point of view it's probably really an option for you to stick with a more common OS like Windows. I am pretty sure you'll get C::B up and running in seconds on that OS.
That said, it is unclear what I need to do in order to get Code::Blocks to work in Ubuntu again. Like the op, I had added pasgui's repository to my package manager and installed 'codeblocks' and all dependencies from there. Is anyone able to provide instructions for resolving this issue within the Package Manager?
Is the condescension really necessary, Morten? I need to use Linux because it is the primary operating system used in the research that I do.I meant this seriously (as I usually ALWAYS mean things seriously). You didn't tell you are forced to use Linux. With that in mind I wouldn't have said that.
I personally would never use windows, if I would not be forced to use some tools (on work) that are not abvailable for linux.Is the condescension really necessary, Morten? I need to use Linux because it is the primary operating system used in the research that I do.I meant this seriously (as I usually ALWAYS mean things seriously). You didn't tell you are forced to use Linux. With that in mind I wouldn't have said that.
Would (some of) this confusion be removed by adding an INSTALL into the tarball of debs stating exactly which version of the wx libs the package has been built with? There does not seem to be any easy way of extracting this information from the debs themselves - they just report a dependency against wx version 2.8.0.) A similar statement in the Windows versions would also be welcome.
I personally would never use windows, if I would not be forced to use some tools (on work) that are not abvailable for linux.
I never ever had any windows version that runs flawlessly.
The same is for linux, but on linux, I can fix everything so it fits my needs.
<APPLAUSE>Please, let's not start a OS discussion/flame war here. Choosing the right OS is a personal thing and everyone has different objectives on that topic. For us it's clearly a benefit to have both (all) worlds on board.
I might setup a repo with C::B 10.05 release the next days. If I do so, I will post the link here.
deb http://apt.jenslody.de/ any release
deb-src http://apt.jenslody.de/ any release
Please, let's not start a OS discussion/flame war here. Choosing the right OS is a personal thing and everyone has different objectives on that topic. For us it's clearly a benefit to have both (all) worlds on board.
Would you agree with me that telling a C::B user to stick to Windows is a direct violation of that principle?If the user wants to develop using C::B and cannot get the IDE to run on Linux, then: No. Otherwise: Yes. But that wasn't my intention, obviously. I like and use Linux, too. But when it comes to a quick setup I personally believe Windows is easier to handle. So all I wanted to do is offering a quick solution which seems to offend some users. So I can also just shut up.
Would you agree with me that telling a C::B user to stick to Windows is a direct violation of that principle?If the user wants to develop using C::B and cannot get the IDE to run on Linux, then: No. Otherwise: Yes. But that wasn't my intention, obviously. I like and use Linux, too. But when it comes to a quick setup I personally believe Windows is easier to handle. So all I wanted to do is offering a quick solution which seems to offend some users. So I can also just shut up.
If this is so, can the message at the bottom of http://www.codeblocks.org/downloads/26 be updated so as not to confuse others.
Done, thanks for reminding.If this is so, can the message at the bottom of http://www.codeblocks.org/downloads/26 be updated so as not to confuse others.
Yes, I will remove it, after I tested it myself.
[ /quote]
Jens, Any chance of removing this (now incorrect) message?
Done, thanks for reminding.If this is so, can the message at the bottom of http://www.codeblocks.org/downloads/26 be updated so as not to confuse others.
Yes, I will remove it, after I tested it myself.
[ /quote]
Jens, Any chance of removing this (now incorrect) message?
What's about ubuntu 9.10 ?
Does it still not work with ubuntu's packages, or is there an update available also ?