From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 04:14:13 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 123 ************************************************** Friday 01 February 2002 Number 123 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: installpkg bin.zip ? : Mentore Siesto 2 Re: installpkg bin.zip ? : Mentore Siesto 3 Re: installpkg bin.zip ? : John Poltorak 4 Re: installpkg bin.zip ? : Holger Veit 5 Re: New PDKSH : Thomas Dickey 6 GLIBC : John Poltorak 7 New PDKSH : John Poltorak 8 Re: New PDKSH : Stefan Neis 9 Re: New PDKSH : John Poltorak 10 Re: Hi folks... need a rexx regex library : Dave Saville" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:08:58 +0100 (CET) From: Mentore Siesto Subject: Re: installpkg bin.zip ? On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, frank schmittroth wrote: fs >On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:13:55 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: fs > fs >>> I have been following this maillist for awhile and thought I'd see if I fs >>> could try to install something. I followed the instructions and installed fs >>> ux2_base.zip, successfully it appears. fs >> fs >>Thanks for giving it a try and providing feedback. fs >>Please bear in mind that we are still at a very early stage with fs >UnixOS/2 >packages and their installation. fs >Understood. fs > fs >>Also the packages are basically ZIP files with embedded paths using the fs >>recommended directory structure so you should be able to simply UNZIP fs >>them. IIRC, installing/removing packages was scheduled after the completion ef the UnixOS2 structure... We discussed this issue more than one year ago. fs >start over. I may spend a bit of time staring at the rexx code, if fs >you think that installpkg/removepkg are likely to be part of a more fs >developed unixos2 system. This is a good idea. -- Mentore Siesto Team OS/2 Italia (http://www.teamos2.it) Home page: http://www.geocities.com/mentoruccio/ **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:11:34 +0100 (CET) From: Mentore Siesto Subject: Re: installpkg bin.zip ? On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: JP >The package management was based on SlackWare and there are no plans JP >to change that. Of course, a GUI front end may evolve if someone wants JP >to develop something. Personally, I'm hoping to be able to use some of JP >the standard SlackWare Dialog screens from SETUP, to install packages JP >now that we have an OS/2 port of Dialog, but that should simply be a JP >front end for InstallPkg. This was the original goal of this part of UnixOS2 project. I proposed to use DrDialog or VREXX to create a PM interface to installpkg, but we focused upon a more SlackWare-like implementation using Dialog. IMVHO, using a complete PM interface would be more OS/2 - eCS friendly, but I have no preference. -- Mentore Siesto Team OS/2 Italia (http://www.teamos2.it) Home page: http://www.geocities.com/mentoruccio/ **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 11:43:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: installpkg bin.zip ? On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:11:34AM +0100, Mentore Siesto wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > JP >The package management was based on SlackWare and there are no plans > JP >to change that. Of course, a GUI front end may evolve if someone wants > JP >to develop something. Personally, I'm hoping to be able to use some of > JP >the standard SlackWare Dialog screens from SETUP, to install packages > JP >now that we have an OS/2 port of Dialog, but that should simply be a > JP >front end for InstallPkg. > > This was the original goal of this part of UnixOS2 project. I proposed to > use DrDialog or VREXX to create a PM interface to installpkg, but we > focused upon a more SlackWare-like implementation using Dialog. > > IMVHO, using a complete PM interface would be more OS/2 - eCS friendly, > but I have no preference. If we have a working InstallPkg, it doesn't really matter what is used as a front end. Whether it's PM based DrDialog, curses based Dialog or even straight command line should be an option for the end user. However no one has offered to provide a front end as yet. Anyone familiar with DrDialog, VREXX, or anything else is invited to come up with something. > -- > Mentore Siesto > Team OS/2 Italia (http://www.teamos2.it) > Home page: http://www.geocities.com/mentoruccio/ > -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 12:20:19 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: installpkg bin.zip ? On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:11:34AM +0100, Mentore Siesto wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > JP >The package management was based on SlackWare and there are no plans > JP >to change that. Of course, a GUI front end may evolve if someone wants > JP >to develop something. Personally, I'm hoping to be able to use some of > JP >the standard SlackWare Dialog screens from SETUP, to install packages > JP >now that we have an OS/2 port of Dialog, but that should simply be a > JP >front end for InstallPkg. > > This was the original goal of this part of UnixOS2 project. I proposed to > use DrDialog or VREXX to create a PM interface to installpkg, but we > focused upon a more SlackWare-like implementation using Dialog. > > IMVHO, using a complete PM interface would be more OS/2 - eCS friendly, > but I have no preference. I strongly advocate against too complicated (read: PM or WPS) code. I don't like having a too complex environment for basic installation (this is also why I don't like software installer, feature installer, and WarpIn). Basically, you should be able to install a system from scratch, with not *much* more than the stuff you find on the boot disks. Thus you could restore a crashed environment. Graphical frontends are okay, but not if they are then mandatory in the process. You should be able to install on an absolutely minimal OS/2 system (I'd consider three boot disks + TSHELL as such an environment, for instance). Keep it simple, stupid. Holger -- Please update your tables to my new e-mail address: holger.veit$ais.fhg.de (replace the '$' with ' at ' -- spam-protection) **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 12:56:12 -0500 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: New PDKSH On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:36:27PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > I often see older versions of PDKSH being recommended for use as /bin/sh > > and have never understood why. Did 5.2.14 break something which worked in > > previous versions? Or is it just a reluctance to use newer versions? > > That's probably just the idea of "never changing a running system". > As long as "ash" as installed on my system fits my needs for > autoconf/configure/make, I won't waste my time with debugging yet another > new cool version of yet another shell - and many people seem to have > similar feelings, even in the Linux world were almost everybody seems to > be keen to try/use the newest whatever - but some people apparently still > insist on using bash1 (which even I wouldn't do) as it's still included in > the distros. bash1 ran well enough for lots of shell scripts (the early bash2's had a bad habit of dumping core - but that was a while ago, still). -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:14:41 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: GLIBC I've been looking at the SlackWare GLIBC package and this looks to contain most of the headers found under /usr/include. What I'd like to do is create a GLIBC package for UnixOS/2 using all the headers and libraries from emx/gcc. Over time this package would be built up to include as many headers and libraries as possible which were the equivalents of those found on Linux. Any comments?... -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:35:15 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: New PDKSH There has been an update to PDKSH which is available here:- http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~ilya/software/os2/pdksh-5.2.14-bin-2.zip According to NEWS.os2/:- After 5.2.14: 1. New environment variables EXEC_PM_BOND EXEC_PM_WINDOW_HIDE EXEC_PM_SWITCH_ENTRY_HIDE EXEC_PM_ASYNC recognized. 2. Will not steal characters from a terminal while the kid is running. 3. The `read' command works with text-mode files too. 4. When kid executes the `exec' command, its parent gets a correct exit code. 5. The scripts without extension now do not have '.' appended to the name. Version 5.2.14 pdkhs now forwards SIGBREAK etc to childs which forgot to intercept keyboard interrupts (such as ping.exe). Please give this a test and report any problems to the porter, who BTW is not on this list. I often see older versions of PDKSH being recommended for use as /bin/sh and have never understood why. Did 5.2.14 break something which worked in previous versions? Or is it just a reluctance to use newer versions? -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:36:27 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: New PDKSH On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > I often see older versions of PDKSH being recommended for use as /bin/sh > and have never understood why. Did 5.2.14 break something which worked in > previous versions? Or is it just a reluctance to use newer versions? That's probably just the idea of "never changing a running system". As long as "ash" as installed on my system fits my needs for autoconf/configure/make, I won't waste my time with debugging yet another new cool version of yet another shell - and many people seem to have similar feelings, even in the Linux world were almost everybody seems to be keen to try/use the newest whatever - but some people apparently still insist on using bash1 (which even I wouldn't do) as it's still included in the distros. Regards, Stefan **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 19:36:24 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: New PDKSH On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:36:27PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > I often see older versions of PDKSH being recommended for use as /bin/sh > > and have never understood why. Did 5.2.14 break something which worked in > > previous versions? Or is it just a reluctance to use newer versions? > > That's probably just the idea of "never changing a running system". > As long as "ash" as installed on my system fits my needs for > autoconf/configure/make, I won't waste my time with debugging yet another > new cool version of yet another shell - and many people seem to have > similar feelings, even in the Linux world were almost everybody seems to > be keen to try/use the newest whatever - but some people apparently still > insist on using bash1 (which even I wouldn't do) as it's still included in > the distros. Sure, if you have a working system which you have spent years putting together and which never fails and builds everything correctly then stick with it. Many people have not spent a long time putting together a tool set and just want to be able to grab all the required utils and use them. Do you suggest I collect all the oldest examples of sh, grep, sed, awk and friends? It is becoming more and more difficult to build with old software. Sometimes the version of Autoconf or Perl being used will not satisfy the build requirements. Sometimes, there are so many different versions of the same program, such as Make that no one knows which should be used. There are also many different versions of REGEX and INTL libs. I'm aiming to try and pull a standard distibution together and sh.exe is one of the key elements of that so it would be nice to adopt one which has been tested reasonably well. Unfortunately IZ's ports of PDKSH don't seem to make it to Hobbes so many people are not aware of them. > Regards, > Stefan > -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:14:06 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Hi folks... need a rexx regex library On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:49:40 +0200 (EET), Sergey I. Yevtushenko wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:24:15 -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > >Hi! > >>I know rexxlib will do this, but it times out after thirty days. I'm >>hoping that there's a gnu regex rexx lib out there that I can use >>instead. Any ideas where I can find such a beast? I tried searching on >>Holger's site, but came up empty... any ideas, anyone? > >There is one in the EMX samples, if I remember correctly. There is - and it is compiled into a dll how? -- Regards Dave Saville Please note new email address dave.saville at ntlworld.com