From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 04:09:34 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 110 ************************************************** Saturday 19 January 2002 Number 110 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: jpeg6 & libpng : Andrew MacIntyre 2 Re: jpeg6 & libpng : John Poltorak 3 Re: jpeg6 & libpng : John Poltorak 4 Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime : S. Vetter" 5 Re: jpeg6 & libpng : John Poltorak 6 Cron/2 1.41 DOS Session error? : email at eracc.hypermart.net 7 Re: Iconv is fully available now btw : Holger Veit 8 Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime : S. Vetter" 9 EMX - It's more than a Runtime : John Poltorak 10 Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime : John Poltorak 11 Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime : S. Vetter" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 05:37:58 +1100 (EDT) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: jpeg6 & libpng On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > jpeg6 and libpng are currently a couple of UnixOS/2 packages consisting of > ports made by HCChu before he disappeared. Now, I have just discovered > these two ports:- > > http://www.pcug.org.au/~andymac/jpeg6b-emx.zip > > http://www.pcug.org.au/~andymac/libpng-1.0.12-emx.zip > > which someone here might recognise... IMV it's better to use currently > maintained ports if possible so I'd like to adopt these two instead. I'm curious as to how you found them, as I've not advertised them. > Just wondered how recent and compatible they are... They were done late last year, and as stated on the pages that lead to them, they were done to support a binary package for the Python Imaging Library. I have no idea how compatible they are with other releases, as that wasn't a goal. ISTR that there is a more recent release of libpng, but I've not (yet) thought about doing something about it. -- 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 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:45:12 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: jpeg6 & libpng On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:37:58AM +1100, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > jpeg6 and libpng are currently a couple of UnixOS/2 packages consisting of > > ports made by HCChu before he disappeared. Now, I have just discovered > > these two ports:- > > > > http://www.pcug.org.au/~andymac/jpeg6b-emx.zip > > > > http://www.pcug.org.au/~andymac/libpng-1.0.12-emx.zip > > > > which someone here might recognise... IMV it's better to use currently > > maintained ports if possible so I'd like to adopt these two instead. > > I'm curious as to how you found them, as I've not advertised them. Apologies if they were not meant for public consumption... Should they be removed if anyone has them available for download? I stumbled across them by following some links on your Python pages which led to:- http://www.pcug.org.au/~andymac/libraries.html > > Just wondered how recent and compatible they are... > > They were done late last year, and as stated on the pages that lead to > them, they were done to support a binary package for the Python Imaging > Library. > > I have no idea how compatible they are with other releases, as that wasn't > a goal. In view of the problems that can arise from the proliferation of DLLs from different sources, it would make sense to standardise on particular versions, preferably from an active maintainer. > ISTR that there is a more recent release of libpng, but I've not (yet) > thought about doing something about it. Is there any reason it shouldn't build straight out of the box? That's what we are aiming for after all.. > -- > 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 > -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:16:43 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: jpeg6 & libpng On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 11:45:12AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:37:58AM +1100, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > > ISTR that there is a more recent release of libpng, but I've not (yet) > > thought about doing something about it. > > Is there any reason it shouldn't build straight out of the box? That's > what we are aiming for after all.. I have just had a look at what I think is the most recent LIBPNG here:- ftp://ftp.uu.net/graphics/png/src/libpng-1.0.12.tar.gz The included configure file says:- echo " There is no \"configure\" script for Libpng-1.0.12. Instead, please copy the appropriate makefile for your system from the \"scripts\" directory. Read the INSTALL file for more details. " and the scripts directory does contain a makefile.os2, as well as a libpng.icc and even makefile.msc so it looks as though OS/2 is supported, at least in theory, but it would be useful to find out if it actually get tested on OS/2. > > > -- > > 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 > > -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:28:57 -0500 From: "S. Vetter" Subject: Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime John: Never know... I'm going to take a look at it since I would like to know more about it. And to look at porting software to OS/2. Scott --------------------- John Poltorak wrote: > This month's OS/2eZine includes an article about EMX:- > > http://www.os2ezine.com/20020116/page_7.html > > It's nice to see EMX mentioned but I don't expect anyone here to benefit > from it... > > -- > John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:08:14 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: jpeg6 & libpng On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 03:16:43PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 11:45:12AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:37:58AM +1100, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > > > > > ISTR that there is a more recent release of libpng, but I've not (yet) > > > thought about doing something about it. > > > > Is there any reason it shouldn't build straight out of the box? That's > > what we are aiming for after all.. > > I have just had a look at what I think is the most recent LIBPNG here:- > > ftp://ftp.uu.net/graphics/png/src/libpng-1.0.12.tar.gz Just after posting this, I received notification of a new version - v1.2.1 which has a homepage here:- http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/libpng.html -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:01:37 -0600 From: email at eracc.hypermart.net Subject: Cron/2 1.41 DOS Session error? I'm running the update to cron/2 that was posted to hobbes by Detlef Graef. When it launches a program it gives an error: Launching epm.exe on Sun 1.20.2002 at 17:00...ERROR: DosStartSession failed: 457 Any of you gurus care to take a stab at why? TIA BTW, has anyone yet ported or built a cron+at for OS/2 that will run detached? Compiled code, not REXX. Gene -- +=========================-=>Unix & OS/2<=-=========================+ # Owner and C.E.O. - ERA Computer Consulting - Jackson, TN USA # # OS/2, UnixWare, OpenServer & Linux Business Computing Solutions # # Please visit our www pages at http://eracc.hypermart.net/ # +===================================================================+ We run IBM OS/2 v.4.00, Revision 9.036 Sysinfo: 42 Processes, 164 Threads, uptime is 11d 19h 25m 26s 203ms **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:37:30 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: Iconv is fully available now btw On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 08:32:07PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: [...] > > Thinking of UnixOS2 as a Unix system, what is then the difference between > > a "libiconv", and a "_real_ libiconv"? > > [snip] > > That's a misunderstanding. ;-) > The new OS/2 patches that have been included into the offical > GNU gettext tree contain a intl/os2/iconv.c file that exports > the GNU libiconv functions but internally it uses the OS/2 > Unicode API. > On the other side the "real" libiconv i.e. the "official > standalone GNU libiconv" contains its own several 100kB of > character sets. > gettext/intl/os2/iconv.c is small but restricted to (installed) > OS/2 charsets while GNU libiconv supports dozens or hundreds of > different charsets of different OSes and computer systems. > GNU recode is one of the packages that require the GNU libiconv. I see. Then it is the question what *we* need to have here. OS/2 is available for dozens of countries. Most of them are Latin-1 countries, but there is still an active scene in Russia and Japan, so it is probably a wise choice to have a fullblown (GNU) iconv library; not just for the benefit of a versatile recode. > I only wanted to say that if a program requires gettext > _and_ libiconv you might get a "double defined symbols" error > if you link with -lintl -iconv. Now, since you actually specify forwarder.a libraries for the corresponding DLLs above, it is in our hands where we get the definitions actually from, and which symbol comes from which DLL. This also holds for a transition to libemu libraries (the current intl, gettext, and iconv DLLs are EMX ones, but the libemu ones will have an incompatible runtime system (thus it is a good idea not to name the underlying DLLs the same as the EMX ones)). > Or imagine the following configure script: > > checking for gettext (gcc -lintl ...): yes => use it > checking for libiconv (gcc -lintl -liconv ...): no (because > of double defined symbols) => no libiconv will be used Thus, libintl.a has to be modified not to forward iconv symbols if we decide to have an official GNU iconv, despite what the intl.dll actually contains - in the worst case, there is just unused slack code in the DLL. OTOH, this brings up the question of "to have or not to have static libraries." Holger -- Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:52:44 -0500 From: "S. Vetter" Subject: Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime John: Thanks. I got it and printed it. Will be reading through it tonight. Scott -------------- John Poltorak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 03:28:57PM -0500, S. Vetter wrote: > > John: > > > > Never know... I'm going to take a look at it since I would like to know > > more about it. And to look at porting software to OS/2. > > IMV there is a much better article 'Getting Started with EMX/GCC' in the > very first issue of EDM/2. See:- > > http://www.edm2.com/0101/emx.html > > Obviously, the nine year intervening period since it was written makes it > a little out of date as far as filenames and versions go, but it's still a > good place to start. The article itself could do with being refreshed, but > I doubt whether its author still uses OS/2... > > > Scott > > > > --------------------- > > > > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > This month's OS/2eZine includes an article about EMX:- > > > > > > http://www.os2ezine.com/20020116/page_7.html > > > > > > It's nice to see EMX mentioned but I don't expect anyone here to benefit > > > from it... > > -- > John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:07:16 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: EMX - It's more than a Runtime This month's OS/2eZine includes an article about EMX:- http://www.os2ezine.com/20020116/page_7.html It's nice to see EMX mentioned but I don't expect anyone here to benefit from it... -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 20:38:34 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 03:28:57PM -0500, S. Vetter wrote: > John: > > Never know... I'm going to take a look at it since I would like to know > more about it. And to look at porting software to OS/2. IMV there is a much better article 'Getting Started with EMX/GCC' in the very first issue of EDM/2. See:- http://www.edm2.com/0101/emx.html Obviously, the nine year intervening period since it was written makes it a little out of date as far as filenames and versions go, but it's still a good place to start. The article itself could do with being refreshed, but I doubt whether its author still uses OS/2... > Scott > > --------------------- > > John Poltorak wrote: > > > This month's OS/2eZine includes an article about EMX:- > > > > http://www.os2ezine.com/20020116/page_7.html > > > > It's nice to see EMX mentioned but I don't expect anyone here to benefit > > from it... -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 21:10:56 -0500 From: "S. Vetter" Subject: Re: EMX - It's more than a Runtime John: Is there a file on hobbs that contains the "make" program? Scott John Poltorak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 03:28:57PM -0500, S. Vetter wrote: > > John: > > > > Never know... I'm going to take a look at it since I would like to know > > more about it. And to look at porting software to OS/2. > > IMV there is a much better article 'Getting Started with EMX/GCC' in the > very first issue of EDM/2. See:- > > http://www.edm2.com/0101/emx.html > > Obviously, the nine year intervening period since it was written makes it > a little out of date as far as filenames and versions go, but it's still a > good place to start. The article itself could do with being refreshed, but > I doubt whether its author still uses OS/2... > > > Scott > > > > --------------------- > > > > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > This month's OS/2eZine includes an article about EMX:- > > > > > > http://www.os2ezine.com/20020116/page_7.html > > > > > > It's nice to see EMX mentioned but I don't expect anyone here to benefit > > > from it... > > -- > John