Crashes

[digi_relm]

Hi

Just started looking at Code:Blocks but I don't understand the file create or open bug.  Its something about the extention and using "Untitled1" could someone please explain because it cases Code:Blocks to crash everytime.

Thanks

digi_relm

[Pecan]

Hi

Just started looking at Code:Blocks but I don't understand the file create or open bug.  Its something about the extention and using "Untitled1" could someone please explain because it cases Code:Blocks to crash everytime.

Thanks

digi_relm

   //-- Please Provide more information
   Would you state your CodeBlocks and compiler version, and your Operating System.
   Also state  your wxWidgets version if you're using one.

[digi_relm]

Hi

Thanks for the quick reply

opensuse 10.2
Code:Blocks v1.0 RC2
GNU CGG not sure what version but its as included in the RPM
Here's the file name "codeblocks-1.0_0.cvs.20051104-3.guru.suse100.i686.rpm"
wx 2.6.1

Just after you create a project or open one Code:Blocks closes.

digi_relm

[Pecan]

Hi

Thanks for the quick reply

opensuse 10.2
Code:Blocks v1.0 RC2
GNU CGG not sure what version but its as included in the RPM
Here's the file name "codeblocks-1.0_0.cvs.20051104-3.guru.suse100.i686.rpm"
wx 2.6.1

Just after you create a project or open one Code:Blocks closes.

digi_relm

RC2 is so out of date it's as artritic as I.

Please de-install RC2 and install a nightly build. You'll be amazed at the features and wonderful changes. AND the bugs left behind.

   //-- Nightly Builds
    Nightly builds

[digi_relm]

Hi

Sorry could you post a link I am having trouble finding the RPM

digi_relm

[Pecan]

Hi

Sorry could you post a link I am having trouble finding the RPM

digi_relm

http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Compiled_packages_of_Code::Blocks
Compiled packages of Code::Blocks - CodeBlocks

http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Compiling_Code::Blocks_in_RPM_based_distributions

Google:
site:forums.codeblocks.org suse 10.2

[TheTuxKeeper]

The 03 february 2007 build is out.
The suse100+101 packages seem to work under suse 10.2. I didn't really check this myself (just ran it once under 10.2, but without any problem).

btw. do you really use wxGTK 2.6.1 ? suse 10.2 uses 2.6.3. Did you update suse ?

[Biplab]

The suse100+101 packages seem to work under suse 10.2. I didn't really check this myself (just ran it once under 10.2, but without any problem).

btw. do you really use wxGTK 2.6.1 ? suse 10.2 uses 2.6.3. Did you update suse ?

They (10+10.1 rpm) work perfectly under OpenSUSE 10.2. I have tested it.

Though I use wxGTK 2.6.3 and GCC 4.1.2 to compile it from svn source. I don't know how create a RPM from the compiled binary. If you can provide some informations on how to do that I can upload it periodically. 

[TheTuxKeeper]

I think one package is enough. They run under 10.2 so why more, it's just causing more confusion
I'll try to upload at least weekly, suse and fedora packages. todays nightly is already in queue (but have to wait till the computer is idle  ) so at latest tomorrow morning a new suse nightly will be available (even if the "not yet" is still there)

The second link pecan posted should be enough to build a rpm succesfully. The points 1.2 and 2 are what should be enough for you 
I don't use the spec file in the svn repo to create the nightlies (nightlies = one package <=> svn spec file = multiple packages)

To create a rpm out of already built files is possible but much more complicated than recompiling

[Biplab]

I think one package is enough. They run under 10.2 so why more, it's just causing more confusion

You are right. That may create confusion. But when they work on 10.2, then please add 10.2 somewhere in the file name so that user can come to know about that. 

I'll try to upload at least weekly, suse and fedora packages. todays nightly is already in queue (but have to wait till the computer is idle  ) so at latest tomorrow morning a new suse nightly will be available (even if the "not yet" is still there)

Thanks for the post. 

The second link pecan posted should be enough to build a rpm succesfully. The points 1.2 and 2 are what should be enough for you 
I don't use the spec file in the svn repo to create the nightlies (nightlies = one package <=> svn spec file = multiple packages)

To create a rpm out of already built files is possible but much more complicated than recompiling

It seems the process is bit complex. I'll continue using make install till I figure out how to create a RPM. Don't worry, I'll not start any parallel distribution once I create first RPM. Unless it's stable in my PC and you devs agree, it won't be out. 

[TheTuxKeeper]

You are right. That may create confusion. But when they work on 10.2, then please add 10.2 somewhere in the file name so that user can come to know about that. 

You're right. But I've installed the suse100+101 package under 10.2 for the first time just 2 weeks ago and only started codeblocks twice.
I'll rename it to  suse100-102. 

The second link pecan posted should be enough to build a rpm succesfully. The points 1.2 and 2 are what should be enough for you 
I don't use the spec file in the svn repo to create the nightlies (nightlies = one package <=> svn spec file = multiple packages)

To create a rpm out of already built files is possible but much more complicated than recompiling

It seems the process is bit complex. I'll continue using make install till I figure out how to create a RPM. Don't worry, I'll not start any parallel distribution once I create first RPM. Unless it's stable in my PC and you devs agree, it won't be out. 

No, it isn't very complicated to create an rpm. Just set up the non-root environment, install the dependencies and run these commands:

Code

./bootstrap
./configure --enable-contrib
make dist
rpmbuild -tb codeblocks-trunk-r$REVISION.tar.gz

The rpm packages will be in one of the architecture specific subdirectories (i386, x86_64, ppc, ...) of $RPM_TOPDIR/RPMS/. Install codeblocks-1.0_0.svn.$REVISION-0.suse102.i586.rpm and codeblocks-contrib-1.0_0.svn.$REVISION-0.suse102.i586.rpm as root

If you want the one-package spec file i can pm it to you. It's not at the same level as the one in svn, but it does what it should do  :lol: