i fonund that no ubuntu series packages for a long timeYou can try my (debian-)repo. They can work for ubuntu, but depends on the ubuntu-version.
$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
dpkg-buildpackage: source package codeblocks
dpkg-buildpackage: source version 13.12svn9513
dpkg-buildpackage: source distribution unstable
dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Jens Lody <jens@codeblocks.org>
dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64
dpkg-source --before-build git
dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libstdc++6-4.3-dev | libstdc++6-4.4-dev | libstdc++6-4.5-dev | libstdc++6-4.6-dev
dpkg-buildpackage: warning: build dependencies/conflicts unsatisfied; aborting
dpkg-buildpackage: warning: (Use -d flag to override.)
obf@obf-VirtualBox ~/codeblocks/git $ sudo apt-get install libstdc++-dev
[sudo] password for obf:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package libstdc++-dev is a virtual package provided by:
libstdc++6-4.6-dev 4.6.4-6ubuntu2
libstdc++6-4.4-dev 4.4.7-8ubuntu1
libc++-dev 1.0~svn199600-1
libstdc++6-4.7-dev 4.7.3-12ubuntu1
libstdc++-4.8-dev 4.8.2-19ubuntu1
You should explicitly select one to install.
E: Package 'libstdc++-dev' has no installation candidate
i fonund that no ubuntu series packages for a long time
It should work if you remove the line completely from debian/control.Quote$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
dpkg-buildpackage: source package codeblocks
dpkg-buildpackage: source version 13.12svn9513
dpkg-buildpackage: source distribution unstable
dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Jens Lody <jens@codeblocks.org>
dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture amd64
dpkg-source --before-build git
dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libstdc++6-4.3-dev | libstdc++6-4.4-dev | libstdc++6-4.5-dev | libstdc++6-4.6-dev
dpkg-buildpackage: warning: build dependencies/conflicts unsatisfied; aborting
dpkg-buildpackage: warning: (Use -d flag to override.)
obf@obf-VirtualBox ~/codeblocks/git $ sudo apt-get install libstdc++-dev
[sudo] password for obf:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package libstdc++-dev is a virtual package provided by:
libstdc++6-4.6-dev 4.6.4-6ubuntu2
libstdc++6-4.4-dev 4.4.7-8ubuntu1
libc++-dev 1.0~svn199600-1
libstdc++6-4.7-dev 4.7.3-12ubuntu1
libstdc++-4.8-dev 4.8.2-19ubuntu1
You should explicitly select one to install.
E: Package 'libstdc++-dev' has no installation candidate
Isn't it possible to make this command pick the appropriate libstdc++ library for my compiler (4.8.1 in my case)?
This is a mint-lastest installation inside virtual box.
Can you add a ticket in the tracker on sf.net?Yes, i can. By the way, do you understand my english easily or with problems? =)
Please include a bit more detailed explanation.
thanks a lot,it seems a little complex for me(a Linux learner),but i will try it :)i fonund that no ubuntu series packages for a long time
I am on Kubuntu, and I found it convenient to build C::B from Jens Lody's preconfigured source tarball. Works every time.
Just follow the few simple steps at http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,18580.msg127254.html#msg127254
Avast antivirus is complaining there is a virus/malware in this binary (for Windows).Search the forum.
It should work if you remove the line completely from debian/control.It worked, but it didn't pick the revision number correctly...
g++ should depend on the correct libstdc++-dev automatically,
and g++ is a dependency of the build-essential-package which is an automatic dependency of the debian build-system.
I don't know if it also works for older revisions of debian-based distro's, but on wheezy it seems to work.
I agree. I personally think it's False Positive result of Avast's heuristics. Avast only complained about this build. I usually install all nightly builds. And it was the first time Avast complained about the build.Avast antivirus is complaining there is a virus/malware in this binary (for Windows).Search the forum.
My (very personal) opinin:
there is a malware on your system called avast.
Hello Everybody.
I agree that the user of the anti virus software has to report the "false positive" detection to his av-scanner provider. But I think it would be helpful if there would be a topic in the forum of code::blocks, that can be used to post information about this. It may be useful, if every kind of anti virus software has its own sub-topic. Other users can see, what is already reported if the reporter posts the ticket-number.
In my case I found in the forum the post http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,19182.0.html (http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,19182.0.html), where I learned that afb45 already reported a similar "false positive" detection under the ticked number " submission [3491738]" in April. But his detection reported the detection of "Trojan.Gen.SMH" while in my case the "Suspicious.Cloud.7.F" was detected. For some reasons my first report to Symantec under the ticket-number "submission (3590276)" last month was not successful. Thus I reported it new today under the ticket-number "submission (3613580)".
I hope this information is helpful for other users of Symantec which have a similar problem.
Best regards,
Eckard.
In relation to submission [3613580].
Upon further analysis and investigation we have verified your submission and, as such, the detection(s) for the following file(s) will be removed from our products:
854E5D01E60235E3ACFA0AFAD2AADC36 - cblauncher.exe
The updated detection(s) will be distributed in the next set of virus definitions, available via LiveUpdate or from our website at http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/defs.download.html
Decisions made by Symantec are subject to change if alterations to the Software are made over time or as classification criteria and/or the policy employed by Symantec changes over time to address the evolving landscape.
If you are a software vendor, why not take part in our whitelisting program?
To participate in this program, please complete the following form: https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist
... so we'll have to upload every cb release we do to every av software vendor? ...
And false positives don't disappear by the first report, to have a false positive to disappear a lot of people have to report it. Why should the AV company trust the first one to report it? Why should it really be a false positive? You only know if you've got enough data.
[...]well... avast! doesn't just do some on-access scan as most simple and free AV's do, it also checks HTTP,SMTP, etc. traffic and intercepts things before they even arrive on your HDD / PC
So it's clean. Strange, but even Avast shows it as clean. While on desktop Avast (with latest updates) shows:
Infection blocked
[...]
PS.: How ever, I miss in this discussion the comments of the developers and/or the forum admin.You've asked for it: I wouldn't have bothered to do this even if I was using windows... I'm not so I can't care less.
If you don't trust us, then build everything from the sources...
well... avast! doesn't just do some on-access scan as most simple and free AV's do, it also checks HTTP,SMTP, etc. traffic and intercepts things before they even arrive on your HDD / PCDid you read my message? I said I was using Avast with latest updates (program updates and virus definitions). The result is not only because of traffic interception. I turned off live shield of Avast. downloaded build's file (it was saved on my drive). Then I turned on shield. So I got the same message from Avast.
And I guess it's basically blocking the URL... so if you had the file on your local PC, it wouldn't even complain...
It's actually weird that it behaves this differently... and it looks like the traffic filter isn't up-to-date^^
Anyway, did you try to manually check for updates for avast!? Maybe you're even using an older version :P VirusTotal is kinda up-to-date in that regard
Patch?
http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Creating_a_patch_to_submit_to_BerliOS_%28Patch_Tracker%29
G:\cb_svn\src\plugins\compilergcc\resources\compilers>svn add options_clang.xml
svn: warning: W150002: 'G:\cb_svn\src\plugins\compilergcc\resources\compilers\op
tions_clang.xml' is already under version control
svn: E200009: Could not add all targets because some targets are already version
ed
svn: E200009: Illegal target for the requested operation
I think running the command "svn diff > my.patch" should be enough to create the patch file.http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Creating_a_patch_to_submit_to_BerliOS_%28Patch_Tracker%29
I don't know how to use svn ... :QuoteG:\cb_svn\src\plugins\compilergcc\resources\compilers>svn add options_clang.xml
svn: warning: W150002: 'G:\cb_svn\src\plugins\compilergcc\resources\compilers\op
tions_clang.xml' is already under version control
svn: E200009: Could not add all targets because some targets are already version
ed
svn: E200009: Illegal target for the requested operation
Index: options_clang.xml
===================================================================
--- options_clang.xml (revision 9916)
+++ options_clang.xml (working copy)
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@
<Command name="LinkNative"
value="$linker $libdirs -o $exe_output $link_objects $link_resobjects $link_options $libs -Wl,--subsystem,native"/>
<Command name="LinkExe"
- value="$linker $libdirs -o $exe_output $link_objects $link_resobjects $link_options $libs -mwindows"/>
+ value="$linker $libdirs -o $exe_output $link_objects $link_resobjects $link_options $libs -Wl,--subsystem,windows"/>
<Command name="LinkDynamic"
value="$linker -shared -Wl,--output-def=$def_output -Wl,--out-implib=$static_output -Wl,--dll $libdirs $link_objects $link_resobjects -o $exe_output $link_options $libs"/>
</if>
http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Creating_a_patch_to_submit_to_BerliOS_%28Patch_Tracker%29Update this wiki page to point to SF.
@edison: Which version of clang is the last one that supported the old switch?
@alpha: Can we make this parse the version of clang and then pass the appropriate option?
@edison: Which version of clang is the last one that supported the old switch?
I doubt we ever recognized this argument. This probably changed because we started rejecting unknown -m flags.
Oops, must have missed this. Yes, I should be able to add a quick regex. Will do some testing this weekend to see what is necessary.Just keep in mind that dumpversion doesn't do anything useful - always returns 4.2.1 (at least on linux and osx)
<Command name="LinkExe"
- value="$linker $libdirs -o $exe_output $link_objects $link_resobjects $link_options $libs -mwindows"/>
+ value="$linker $libdirs -o $exe_output $link_objects $link_resobjects $link_options $libs -Wl,--subsystem,windows"/>
<Command name="LinkExe"
value="$linker $libdirs -o $exe_output $link_objects $link_resobjects $link_options $libs"/>
I will soon commit the equivalent of (for all versions of clang)Codeif there are no reported issues with it.<Command name="LinkExe"
value="$linker $libdirs -o $exe_output $link_objects $link_resobjects $link_options $libs"/>
This will cause a console window below the gui window, make it not a "GUI application".Oh dear... flawed test cases. I am so embarrassed. :-[