From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:10:18 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 121 ************************************************** Wednesday 30 January 2002 Number 121 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Upgrading the build environment : Andrew Belov" 2 Re: Upgrading the build environment : Thomas E. Dickey" 3 Re: Upgrading the build environment : Thomas E. Dickey" 4 Re: Has anyone ported nmap? : Adrian Gschwend" 5 Re: Upgrading the build environment : csaba.raduly at sophos.com 6 Re: Upgrading the build environment : John Poltorak 7 Re: Upgrading the build environment : John Poltorak 8 Re: Upgrading the build environment : John Poltorak 9 Re: Upgrading the build environment : John Poltorak 10 installpkg bin.zip ? : frank schmittroth" 11 XINE : John Poltorak 12 cdio.h : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 02:43:43 +0300 (MSK) From: "Andrew Belov" Subject: Upgrading the build environment I'm going to make a rush upgrade of my existing GNU toolset, as it's getting ancient (e.g. patch v 2.1, Autoconf v 2.12-971230pl2, man v 1.0, etc.) and disorganised - collected from zillions of sites. Now, the question is how mature the current versions are. The tools in question are: - GNU patch: what's the suggested version anyway? I tried to make a Q&D build of 2.5.3 myself but it suddenly dumped core on N+1-th diff file and I rolled back to 2.1, didn't have the time to debug. - GCC v 3.0.2 with the accompanying binutils: is the bug with the inability to link empty object files fixed by now? - Autoconf: version 2.13 was really painful and I stuck with two self-made "patch levels" of 2.12-971230, which added some 2.13 functionality but retained the compatibility. Now there are versions 2.5x, the question is how suitable they are for "production use" under OS/2? - Automake: this might be new for OS/2 and I feel I'll need it particularly to compile future versions CVS. Any comments on ports of Automake? - man/roff/less: I tweaked man version 1.0 in many ways to obtain support for CDFS and gzipped manpages handling but still can't deal with "forwarder" man pages (e.g. sprintf(3)). There was a somehow rough port of man v 1.5g about a year ago, which resulted in immortal processes waiting for some pipe operation on my system. Now I feel it's time to upgrade man v 1.0 anyway. :-) - GNU make: I seem to be happy with 3.76.1 for a long time now. Is MAKE 3.79.1 worth trying? I would be glad if someone shares his experience with any of these new tools, that information may finally end up in the programming section of Russian OS/2 FAQ. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:52:57 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Upgrading the build environment On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > With Autoconf, I would suggest giving the latest GNU version a try:- > > ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.52g.tar.gz you can try, but they still didn't fix the check for 'test'. so it won't work... -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:33:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Upgrading the build environment On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:52:57AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > With Autoconf, I would suggest giving the latest GNU version a try:- > > > > > > ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.52g.tar.gz > > > > you can try, but they still didn't fix the check for 'test'. > > so it won't work... > > Do you have an example of this? I read the 2.52g source, to check the other day. The check for an executable is "test -f", which relies on the cygwin-style "test" which relies on adding a ".exe". (I didn't see any checks in the code to accommodate a properly working "test" which doesn't add the suffix). -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:46:06 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Has anyone ported nmap? On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:53:11 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >nmap has not been ported AFAICT, although a number of people would like to >see an OS/2 version, so please go ahead and feel free to ask for any >assistance. I just talked to Brian Smith (aka nuke), he ported it but does not want to maintain it. However, he will send me all the source and I will upload that to netlabs later. Will be a good base I think. I will let you know as soon as I got it cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at OS/2 Netlabs ICQ: 22419590 ktk at netlabs.org ------- The OS/2 OpenSource Project: http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:12:18 +0000 From: csaba.raduly at sophos.com Subject: Re: Upgrading the build environment On 30/01/2002 23:43:43 Andrew Belov wrote: >I'm going to make a rush upgrade of my existing GNU toolset, as it's getting >ancient [snip] You may look at unixos2.com, where you find them all in one place (and reasonably up-to-date too). > >- GNU make: I seem to be happy with 3.76.1 for a long time now. Is MAKE 3.79.1 >worth trying? > 3.79.1 has not been ported yet, AFAIK. The newest is Andreas Buening's 3.76.1s (careful! there are at least three GNU make ports claiming to be 3.76.1); I've created a patch from that to 3.77 Csaba -- Csaba Ráduly, Software Engineer Sophos Anti-Virus email: csaba.raduly at sophos.com http://www.sophos.com US Support: +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support: +44 1235 559933 **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:23:14 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Upgrading the build environment On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:43:43AM +0300, Andrew Belov wrote: > > I'm going to make a rush upgrade of my existing GNU toolset, as it's getting > ancient (e.g. patch v 2.1, Autoconf v 2.12-971230pl2, man v 1.0, etc.) and > disorganised - collected from zillions of sites. Now, the question is how mature > the current versions are. The tools in question are: > > - GNU patch: what's the suggested version anyway? I tried to make a Q&D > build of 2.5.3 myself but it suddenly dumped core on N+1-th diff file and I rolled > back to 2.1, didn't have the time to debug. There is an updated Patch (2.5.4) along with a huge collection of other utils including SED 3.02 and GNU AWK 3.1.0 in the UnixOS/2 BIN package:- ftp://unixos2.com/pub/unixos2/unixos2-current/unixos2/a1/bin.zip In fact you may find it worthwhile checking out every package in that directory along with d1 > - GCC v 3.0.2 with the accompanying binutils: is the bug with the inability to link > empty object files fixed by now? > > - Autoconf: version 2.13 was really painful and I stuck with two self-made "patch > levels" of 2.12-971230, which added some 2.13 functionality but retained the > compatibility. Now there are versions 2.5x, the question is how suitable they are > for "production use" under OS/2? With Autoconf, I would suggest giving the latest GNU version a try:- ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.52g.tar.gz This now incorporates a number of features which where in the old OS/2 port, and if the GNU version works correctly we will no longer require to maintain an OS/2 port. This version is a beta but will become 2.53 in several weeks unless any bugs are reported. This gives us a chance to report any bugs which occur on OS/2. > - Automake: this might be new for OS/2 and I feel I'll need it particularly to > compile future versions CVS. Any comments on ports of Automake? I'm still not really sure about when Automake is required, but I'd suggest getting the one from the UnixOS/2 d1 series. > - man/roff/less: I tweaked man version 1.0 in many ways to obtain support for > CDFS and gzipped manpages handling but still can't deal with "forwarder" man > pages (e.g. sprintf(3)). There was a somehow rough port of man v 1.5g about a > year ago, which resulted in immortal processes waiting for some pipe operation > on my system. Now I feel it's time to upgrade man v 1.0 anyway. :-) Less 370 is available on Hobbes - I need to update the UnixOS/2 package to incorporate this. Groff 1.17 is available in the UnixOS/2 ap1 series. I'm still struggling to get Man 1.5g recompiled and working, but you can get it from here: http://homepage1.nifty.com/jsawa/linux/man15g.zip > - GNU make: I seem to be happy with 3.76.1 for a long time now. Is MAKE 3.79.1 > worth trying? Make 3.79.1 is something I'd like to use, but it isn't available yet, but hopefully progress is being made and we shouldn't have to wait too long. v3.76.1 is something of a misnomer since it does not identify the build and there are several available > I would be glad if someone shares his experience with any of these new tools, > that information may finally end up in the programming section of Russian OS/2 > FAQ. > > -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:13:04 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Upgrading the build environment On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:52:57AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > With Autoconf, I would suggest giving the latest GNU version a try:- > > > > ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.52g.tar.gz > > you can try, but they still didn't fix the check for 'test'. > so it won't work... Do you have an example of this? I have a number of configure scripts which have located .exe files, if that is the test yo mean... > -- > T.E.Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net > -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:46:49 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Upgrading the build environment On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 10:12:18AM +0000, csaba.raduly at sophos.com wrote: > > On 30/01/2002 23:43:43 Andrew Belov wrote: > > >- GNU make: I seem to be happy with 3.76.1 for a long time now. Is MAKE > 3.79.1 > >worth trying? > > > > 3.79.1 has not been ported yet, AFAIK. > The newest is Andreas Buening's 3.76.1s (careful! there are at least three > GNU make ports claiming to be 3.76.1); I've created a patch from that to > 3.77 I never managed to get it built. Do you have a binary I could try? > Csaba > > -- > Csaba Ráduly, Software Engineer Sophos Anti-Virus > email: csaba.raduly at sophos.com http://www.sophos.com > US Support: +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support: +44 1235 559933 > -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:15:15 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Upgrading the build environment On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 07:33:41AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 05:52:57AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.52g.tar.gz > > > > > > you can try, but they still didn't fix the check for 'test'. > > > so it won't work... > > > > Do you have an example of this? > > I read the 2.52g source, to check the other day. The check for an > executable is "test -f", which relies on the cygwin-style "test" which > relies on adding a ".exe". (I didn't see any checks in the code to > accommodate a properly working "test" which doesn't add the suffix). I remember seeing something about setting ac_executable_extensions=".exe". This seems to work for me, although I haven't tested it much.... > -- > T.E.Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net > -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:14:50 -0800 (PST) From: "frank schmittroth" Subject: installpkg bin.zip ? I've done some c progamming, but I'm basically an end user. I have been following this maillist for awhile and thought I'd see if I could try to install something. I followed the instructions and installed ux2_base.zip, successfully it appears. As a next baby step I downloaded the bin.zip package and tried to install it as follows from the root directory: [D:\unixos2]installpkg -s bin.zip 221 419 +++; REX0014: Error 14 running D:\unixos2\usr\sbin\installpkg.cmd, line 419: Incomplete DO/SELECT/IF It looked to me as if the rexx script, installpkg.cmd, had a missing "end" statement for a corresponding "do". I added another "end" at line 286, and the installation apparently created directories and unzipped various programs. If I type "which which", for example, it successfully finds which.exe. I then tried a simulated remove installation with the following result: [D:\unixos2]removepkg -s bin.zip No such package: d:\unixos2\var\log\packages\bin.zip. Can't remove. Either I don't understand what I'm doing (highly likely), or something is wrong. Is installpkg a recommended way to install unixos2 packages? I may leave town tomorrow for a few days should anyone have some advice. Frank. ----------------------- Frank Schmittroth franks at owt.com **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:15:52 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: XINE Has anyone come across XINE? about xine xine is a free, gpl-licensed video player for unix-like systems. xine plays videos synchronizing the playback of image and audio. see:- http://xine.sourceforge.net/index.php Wonder if this would build on OS/2 ? -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:31:52 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: cdio.h Has anyone come across a cdio.h ? I'd tried to build a program for generating a CDDB ID using:- http://family.zawodny.com/jzawodn/c/discid/discid-freebsd-1.3.tar.gz but I'm stuck without this header... -- John