From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:09:26 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 106 ************************************************** Tuesday 15 January 2002 Number 106 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: New Slang : Thomas E. Dickey" 2 Re: New Python : Andrew MacIntyre 3 Re: New Pine : =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C6lfred_=FEe_Lef?= 4 Re: ENOTSUP, who is that beast! : John Poltorak 5 Re: New Slang : John Poltorak 6 RSYNC : John Poltorak 7 Re: Latest Emacs : John Poltorak 8 Re: Autoconf v2.52f : Thomas E. Dickey" 9 Re: ENOTSUP, who is that beast! : Holger Veit 10 New Sox ? : John Poltorak 11 Autoconf v2.52f : John Poltorak 12 Re: Has anybody tried to build libxml2? : Henry Sobotka 13 Help on porting normalize 0.7 : Michel SUCH" 14 Re: GCC for UnixOS2? : John Poltorak 15 Re: Autoconf v2.52f : John Poltorak 16 Has anybody tried to build libxml2? : Thomas Hoffmann 17 GCC for UnixOS2? : lamikr **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:09:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: New Slang On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:18:29AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:36:24AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > There's a new release of SLANG v1.4.4 at Hobbes incoming:- > > > > > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/incoming/slang-1.4.4-os2.zip > > > > > > This appears to be a new build rather than a new version. It's much > > > smaller than the previous release. > > > > > > I'm not sure whether the library should be called libslang.a or slang.a... > > > > for os/2, the latter of course > > Why? makefiles: gcc -o foo foo.c -lslang > I'd suggest that if it is called libslang.a on Unix, then we should call > it the same on OS/2. Newer versions of LD can cope with such library names > when using '-lslang' during linking. older ones don't (ymmv) -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:33:01 +1100 (EDT) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: New Python On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > There's a new Python at Hobbes:- > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/new/python-2.2-emx-bin-011224.zip > > Don't suppose anyone knows if it can be used to run MailMan yet... I sent a reply that's probably gone given your hiatus... I'm working on it. The C parts compile, but I've not yet completed the infrastructure to attempt to try and run it. At the moment a higher priority is to get my patches for Python 2.2 into CVS. -- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:13:30 +1100 (EST) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C6lfred_=FEe_Lef?= Subject: Re: New Pine On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > I'm not aware of any port of ipopd, though I've seen one or two other POP3 > > daemons. If there is an ipopd around, I'd love to know about it. > > Maybe this one:- ... > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/internet/mail/server/ipop3d10.zip It's not the UW one that comes with Pine; it seems to come from BSD. > Have you looked at this INETD port? :- > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/util/network/tcpip/inetd10.zip > > I have a number of daemons started from this INETD and they seem to work > OK. It passes the socket number to the child process via a command-line argument, the same way that IBM's inetd works, and unlike the way that Unix inetd works. While I'm passionate about avoiding #ifdefs, I'm beginning to think that it's best to put some "#ifdef OS2"s into ipop2d/ipop3d/imapd to make it take a command-line argument so that it will run off the usual OS/2 inetds. Nik S. **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:27:00 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ENOTSUP, who is that beast! On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:26:58PM +0100, Holger Veit wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 04:55:40PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 11:32:45AM -0500, Charles R. Hunter wrote: > [...] > > > It's just a constant in errno.h ... > > > on FreeBSD they are defined as: > > > > > > #define EOPNOTSUPP 45 /* Operation not supported */ > > > #define ENOTSUP EOPNOTSUPP /* Operation not supported */ > > > > > > Is this standard in errno.h? ie. does EMX need updating? > > It is not standard. > > > I guess some ANSI standard would define the values which should be > > Neither ANSI nor POSIX define the *values*. They define *some, > not all, of the symbols. In which case what does define the standard? > EOPNOTSUPP is a special error occurring with certain socket operations. > EMX supports them. ENOTSUP is used in BSD for certain other operations > not being supported. I have to check where it really occurs, but at > a first glance, as the #define to a different errno code implies, it is > some quick hack, and maybe in this situation an ENOSYS, or EINVAL might > have been more appropriate. > > > included... If it isn't in the standard, then perhaps the author should > > be asked to change the code so that it does comply with the standard. > > The latter should be done. ENOTSUP is a BSDism. So, EOPNOTSUPP is standard, and ENOTSUP isn't?... How does anyone verify this? > Holger > > -- > Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: > holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) > -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:32:19 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: New Slang On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:18:29AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:36:24AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > There's a new release of SLANG v1.4.4 at Hobbes incoming:- > > > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/incoming/slang-1.4.4-os2.zip > > > > This appears to be a new build rather than a new version. It's much > > smaller than the previous release. > > > > I'm not sure whether the library should be called libslang.a or slang.a... > > for os/2, the latter of course Why? I'd suggest that if it is called libslang.a on Unix, then we should call it the same on OS/2. Newer versions of LD can cope with such library names when using '-lslang' during linking. > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:02:31 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: RSYNC Did someone attempt to get RSYNC working recently? I believe there was a recent port, but I couldn't get daemon mode working... -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 10:35:32 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Latest Emacs On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:05:08AM +0900, Masaru Nomiya wrote: > Hello, > > In the Message; > > Subject : Re: Latest Emacs > Message-ID : <20011201140424.I82 at eyup.org> > Date & Time: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 14:04:24 +0000 > > [John] == John Poltorak has written: > > Me> If you want patch kit, try > Me> > Me> http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ik3a-nsmr/emacs-20.7-kit1.9.tgz > > John> Thanks I'll give it a try. > > John> I'm not really sure how to apply this patch kit. Do you have > John> anything like a build script? > > John> BTW it's case sensitive and should be:- > > John> http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ik3a-nsmr/emacs-20.7-KIT1.9.tgz > > I'm so sorry. > > To build Emacs-20.7, Thanks for this information, unfortunately I haven't had chance to make any progress with it so far. Is it possible to get hold of a set of binaries in the meantime? I'd like to get EMACS into the UnixOS/2 distro and it looks like a complicated app to build, so might take me a week or two to get something working. > --- > Masaru Nomiya E-mail: nomiya at ttmy.ne.jp > > "No WIndows, no gains!" ..... "Why, I am wrong?" > > -- Bill -- -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:29:03 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Autoconf v2.52f On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > Has anyone had much success using the standard GNU Autoconf v2.52f ? it's not a release version, so by definition it is not standard. (on this list there have only been a few comments that it is promising) -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:43:23 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: ENOTSUP, who is that beast! On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:27:00AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: [...] > > > Is this standard in errno.h? ie. does EMX need updating? > > > > It is not standard. > > > > > I guess some ANSI standard would define the values which should be > > > > Neither ANSI nor POSIX define the *values*. They define *some, > > not all, of the symbols. > > In which case what does define the standard? ANSI defines some symbols in errno.h, but only the names, not the error numbers (they are different among *BSD, Linux, AIX, Solaris, etc.). So the information that EOPNOTSUPP has the value 45 on some system, does not mean anything. ANSI does, IIRC, not define errno codes for networking and socket operations, as it does not define an API for this. EMX is mostly ANSI, but in contrast has the socket errnos added, because it can attach to IBM's network APIs. BSD has some errno codes that are BSDisms, and don't occur elsewhere, and also adds the socket errnos which are (see below) interestingly not part of _POSIX_SOURCE. ENOTSUP is one of these hacks; there surely exist reasons that it is EOPNOTSUPP under a different name. In former releases, this might have been a separate error code for some purpose. POSIX has most of the errno codes of BSD and ANSI, but not all of them. Reason is likely use of such codes between the different Unix dialects (one of the cases where POSIX is not the superset of all existing anachronisms as usual). Among the codes whch are not _POSIX_SOURCE, but which exist elsewhere, are: ETXTBSY, EWOULDBLOCK (POSIX uses EAGAIN instead), EINPROGRESS, EALREADY, the socket errnos (ENOTSOCK,EDESTADDRREQ,EMSGSIZE,EPROTOTYPE,ENOPROTOOPT, EPROTONOSUPPORT,ESOCKTNOSUPPORT,EOPNOTSUPP,EPFNOSUPPORT,EAFNOSUPPORT, EADDRINUSE,EADDRNOTAVAIL,ENETDOWN,ENETUNREACH,ENETRESET,ECONNABORTED, ECONRESET,ENOBUFS,EISCONN,ENOTCONN,ESHUTDOWN,ETOOMANYREFS,ETIMEDOUT, ECONNREFUSED,EHOSTDOWN,EHOSTUNREACH), ELOOP, EPROCLIM, EUSERS, EDQUOT, NFS/RPC errnos (ESTALE, EREMOTE, EBADRPC, ERPCMISMATCH, EPROGUNAVAIL, EPROGMISMATCH, EPROCUNAVAIL), EFTYPE, EAUTH, ENEEDAUTH, EIDRM, ENOMSG, EOVERFLOW, ECANCELLD, EILSEQ, ELAST. This means: the "reliable" errnos that remain, are: EPERM, ENOENT, ESRCH, EINTR, EIO, ENXIO, E2BIG, ENOEXEC, EBADF, ECHILD, EDEADLK, ENOMEM, EACCES, EFAULT, EBUSY, EEXIST, EXDEV, ENODEV, ENOTDIR, EISDIR, EINVAL, ENFILE, EMFILE, ENOTTY, EFBIG, ENOSPC, ESPIPE, EROFS, EMLINK, EPIPE, EDOM, ERANGE, EAGAIN, ENAMETOOLONG, ENOTEMPTY, ENOLCK, ENOSYS. Which turns out to be mainly the ANSI set... > > EOPNOTSUPP is a special error occurring with certain socket operations. > > EMX supports them. ENOTSUP is used in BSD for certain other operations > > not being supported. I have to check where it really occurs, but at > > a first glance, as the #define to a different errno code implies, it is > > some quick hack, and maybe in this situation an ENOSYS, or EINVAL might > > have been more appropriate. > > > > > included... If it isn't in the standard, then perhaps the author should > > > be asked to change the code so that it does comply with the standard. > > > > The latter should be done. ENOTSUP is a BSDism. > > > So, EOPNOTSUPP is standard, and ENOTSUP isn't?... See above. Strictly speaking, the socket errnos are not part of what constitutes _POSIX_SOURCE, but most Unixes do no longer distinguish between them in - it does not hurt to have the additional codes, and there is almost no Unix nowadays that does not have sockets. So regard this as fascist practice, and therefore standard. The point is that concerning this rule of thumb, EOPNOTSUPP is ubiquitious, whereas ENOTSUP is not. > > How does anyone verify this? A simple check would be to look into Linux /usr/include/asm/errno.h. You won't find it there. Wonder whether the original code compiles under Linux at all - I suspect the original poster has found some BSD specific code (which is then not used by Linux at all). Holger -- Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:13:37 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: New Sox ? A few weeks ago I almost managed to build Sox v12.17.3. Has anyone actually done it? -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:39:09 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Autoconf v2.52f Has anyone had much success using the standard GNU Autoconf v2.52f ? -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:56:22 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Has anybody tried to build libxml2? Yeah, I've got a build of xml2-2.2.11 here from about a year ago. Had it working with Galeon and something else that required it, so seems ok. I can zip it up for you later this evening. h~ **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:39:17 +0100 (CET) From: "Michel SUCH" Subject: Help on porting normalize 0.7 Hi all, I am currently working on it but have problem with a library called audiofile http://oss.sgi.com/projects/audiofile I can probably fix the problems I have with it, butif someone has already done it it would save time. ---------------------------- Michel SUCH TEAM OS/2 FRANCE ICQ # 51654489 **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:08:03 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: GCC for UnixOS2? On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:22:51PM +0100, lamikr wrote: > Is there any plans to integrate GCC for UnixOS2-distro? Of course, but it will be v3.0+. At the moment I believe its status is considered beta, so once Andy declares that it is a release version, we can try packaging it up. > Mika > -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:14:12 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Autoconf v2.52f On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:29:03AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > > Has anyone had much success using the standard GNU Autoconf v2.52f ? > > it's not a release version, so by definition it is not standard. > (on this list there have only been a few comments that it is promising) It's around a month since I last tried using this version, but I've tried again today and have managed to get this script _almost_ working... At present it requires Autoconf to be already installed in n:/usr/test/bin but I'll try to incorporate the Autoconf install as well at some point. Can someone try this and let me know how far they get? extproc sh -x # # requires tar, gzip, wget # mkdir /workdir cd /workdir #retrieve and install autoconf v2.52f #ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.52f.tar.gz #retrieve and extract SOX test -f sox-12.17.3.tar.gz || wget http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/sox/sox-12.17.3.tar.gz tar zxf sox-12.17.3.tar.gz cd sox-12.17.3 #retrieve and extract config.sub wget -N ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/config/config.sub # #export AC_PREFIX=n:/usr/test/bin PATH=c:/usr/bin';'c:/emx/bin';'n:/usr/test/bin';'c:/os2';' ARCHIVE=sox-12.17.3 SHELL=c:/bin/sh CC=gcc CXX=gcc AWK=awk LEX=flex RANLIB=echo export C_INCLUDE_PATH=c:/emx/include export LIBRARY_PATH=c:/emx/lib export ac_executable_extensions=".exe" export SHELL=/bin/sh autoconf echo change ~817 line of configure script from echo " cat <<\_ACEOF" echo to echo " cat <<_ACEOF" echo and then press ENTER echo read reply ./configure --prefix=/usr/test make emxbind sox emxbind soxmix > -- > T.E.Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:07:28 +0100 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: Has anybody tried to build libxml2? Hi, the subject says it: the latest libxml I could find an OS/2 build of is v. 1.8.7. Now I tried to build v. 2.4.10, but before I dive even deeper in this: has by accident anybody built a libxml2 for OS/2 already? Or can anybody give some hints about caveats of the build process? Thomas. -- Thomas Hoffmann Telephone: 49-351-4598831 thoffman at zappa.sax.de Dresden, Germany ..sig under construction ... **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:22:51 +0100 From: lamikr Subject: GCC for UnixOS2? Is there any plans to integrate GCC for UnixOS2-distro? Mika