From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:20:15 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 172 ************************************************** Friday 22 March 2002 Number 172 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 AWK & SED : Adrian Gschwend" 2 Re: AWK & SED : John Poltorak 3 Re: AWK & SED : Adrian Gschwend" 4 Re: Re: Running ./configure : Andreas Buening 5 Re: Re: Running ./configure : Andreas Buening 6 Re: Ncurses build problem : Thomas Dickey 7 Re: Re: Running ./configure : John Poltorak 8 Re: Ncurses build problem : Thomas Dickey 9 Re: AWK & SED : Michael Zolk 10 Using START in a shell script : John Poltorak 11 Re: giflib : mlaitio 12 Re: Ncurses build problem : John Poltorak 13 Re: Re: Running ./configure : John Poltorak 14 Re: Ncurses build problem : John Poltorak 15 Re: New binary package for GNU Bash 2.05a and GNU Texinfo 4.1 : Dave and Natalie" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:28:34 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: AWK & SED Hi all, I hope it's not a too stupid question, are SED and AWK already available as unixos2-like package? I found no zip files in unixos2/packages, are they contained somewhere else or are they simply not yet packaged? cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at OS/2 Netlabs ICQ: 22419590 ktk at netlabs.org ------- The OS/2 OpenSource Project: http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:43:17 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: AWK & SED On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 01:28:34AM +0100, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > Hi all, > > I hope it's not a too stupid question, are SED and AWK already > available as unixos2-like package? I found no zip files in > unixos2/packages, are they contained somewhere else or are they simply > not yet packaged? They are here:- ftp://unixos2.com/pub/unixos2/unixos2-current/unixos2/a1/bin.zip along with around 40 other programs This is what the Slackware BIN package contains:- bin: Binaries that go in /bin and /usr/bin. bin: bin: Various programs and utilities required by Slackware: bin: bin: apm apmd asapm at atd atrun batch bban bpe compress crond crontab bin: diskcopy dosfsck ed eject file fiz fromdos gawk hdparm igawk indent bin: lha lnsize makewhatis mkdosfs mktemp patch rpm2targz rpmoffset bin: savelog sed shar splitvt sysvbanner tempfile time todos tput unarj bin: unshar uudecode uuencode volname which xapm xx zcmp zless zoo bin: bin: Some of these are missing from the UnixOS/2 equivalent. If anyone knows of any OS/2 ports of those missing programs, I'd like to know where to find them. It's a very important package, one that everyone should try out. > cu > > Adrian > > > -- > Adrian Gschwend > at OS/2 Netlabs -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:09:19 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: AWK & SED On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:43:17 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >They are here:- > >ftp://unixos2.com/pub/unixos2/unixos2-current/unixos2/a1/bin.zip > >along with around 40 other programs ah great thanks! cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at OS/2 Netlabs ICQ: 22419590 ktk at netlabs.org ------- The OS/2 OpenSource Project: http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:15:51 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Re: Running ./configure Dave and Natalie wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:37:13 +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > > >> > export ac_executable_extensions=".exe" (!!!) > >> > >> Not settable under CMD.EXE AFAIK - only under a SHELL. > > > >Yep. That's why I used "!!!" > > Found this patch in pspell-.12.2 > autoconf-exeext.patch > --- acspecific.m4~ Sat Jun 10 16:41:23 2000 > +++ acspecific.m4 Sat Jun 10 03:43:10 2000 > at at -2659,7 +2659,7 at at > if AC_TRY_EVAL(ac_link); then > for file in conftest.*; do > case $file in > - *.c | *.o | *.obj) ;; > + *.c | *.C | *.o | *.obj) ;; > *) ac_cv_exeext=`echo $file | sed -e s/conftest//` ;; > esac > done > > don't know if it is any good or not. The configure script for pspell worked pretty good out of the box, though it did think it was cross-compiling. I guess, ac_cv_exeext is only used for linking executables (i.e. -o foo$ac_cv_exeext) not for finding them. bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie. **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:16:00 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Re: Running ./configure Dave and Natalie wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:59:51 +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > > >b) use OS/2-version of autoconf 2.13 > > you need: > > m4 > > set CFLAGS=-O2 > > a reasonable shell ;-) > > should do most likely the stuff from a) for you > > (if you get it working) > > "make install" will not work > > X11make install has always worked. Newer makes work for make install as well. Okay, I should have been more precise: it doesn't work if your prefix dir contains a drive letter unless you use a patched mkinstalldirs or the newest autoconf 2.52x+. (and please don't tell me that I must never use a drive letter because a) it's not Posix and b) it's much more fun if the program behaves different on different drives) bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:44:13 -0500 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: Ncurses build problem On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 08:37:40PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 05:47:27PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:35:42PM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I've managed to build NCURSES previously, but I'm trying to do it again > > > > in a clean environment without years of accumulated files to determine > > > > exactly what it requires. Unfortunately I can't get configure to run. > > > > It complains about the C compiler being unable to create executables. > > > > > > did you regenerate the configure script? > > > > Yes. > > > > I've got it running now. The problem was due to $TMP AFAICT. > > > Having said that, I can get NCURSES' configure to run from a standalone > CMD file, but if this called from a shell script it fails with the msg > above. I'd turn on the shell trace and see what it produced, and compare that with the working case. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 17:04:08 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Running ./configure On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:37:13PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > In addition to these choices there is another version of Autoconf required > > for NCURSES and TIN, and you need to use the OS2UNIX utility with some > > ports. And then there are the ports where all can do is use a Makefile.... > > > > Not forgetting five or six versions of Make, many different shells, and > > several different ports of various required utilities, different INTL and > > REGEX DLLs and it is pretty much a lottery whether any will build, and if > > it does for one person it probably won't for someone else because they > > have a different sequence of directories in their PATH. > > ;-) > Okay, I was talking about the generic case: you've just downloaded > blurb.tar.gz that contains a configure script that doesn't work > out of the box. I don't really see why we should not have a good chance of being successfull running Autoconf, configure and Make... > [funny stuff] > > > set EMXSHELL=sh > > > > Is this requied still? > > Yes. autoconf needs m4, and m4 needs sh. I don't see any reference to 'EMXSHELL' anywhere... > > > a reasonable shell (pdksh?) > > > > I've stopped using PDKSH with AUTOCONF because it won't allow me to use > > a path such as 'c:\usr\bin' > > Yep. That's why I used "?" > > > > > a _new_ version of perl (can become a real problem) > > > forward slashes in PATH > > > "make install" should work out of the box > > > > Is this correct? > > Not extensively tested, but it seems they now use "mkdir -p" > all times. > > > > > but it's more failure safe than c) > > > > BTW will you be applying any changes from 2.50 into 2.53? I was able to > > build a number of apps with 2.50 which won't work with 2.53 and it's very > > difficult to accomodate multiple Autoconfs... > > I could do it if you think it will help you. :-) > > > > > > > You also need config.sub and config.guess (from > > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/config?) > > > > > > Quite easy, isn't it? ;-) > > > > ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Hmm, I'm getting the impression you're getting somewhat annoyed. It's just frustration with inconsistant results. I can run exactly the same test two times and get differing results. > > Every time I think I'm getting somewhere something breaks.... > > That's why I think we really should move on to _one_ _single_ > build process: I did propose a UnixOS/2 build system a few weeks ago, I don't know if you saw it. > that one the "official" maintainers of those > packages use. If the official maintainer uses a Makefile we > have to use a Makefile, if he uses autoconf we have to use > autoconf, if he uses something else, we have to use something > else. If the maintainer thinks it's necessary to have a flag > --with-libfoo=[yes|no], --with-package-blurb, then we should > also have this flag. But currently every OS/2 porter uses > his own stuff, his own build scripts or his own Makefiles. I'm sure this situation could be improved once a standard set of build utilities are available which produce consistant results and can be relied upon. In any case I think individual maintainers build methods could be integrated into the build system I proposed. > One uses a cmd like Makefile, another requires sh, the next > may not work with ksh, yet another one uses a special compiler > flag or a special install path and the last one requires a > special header file to be installed. Everybody provides the > software as is (it's his good right to do so), but it doesn't > help you. I guess what really matters is existance of a port and it's even better if it's maintained, and can be rebuilt. Very often, I find that I'm unable to rebuild a program even though I try following the instructions as well as I can. It's particularly frustrating being unable to build something like GETTEXT v0.11.1, or PERL. With PERL I can build it with gcc v2.8.1 but not v3.0.3 which suggests I haven't managed to install it properly. > However, in my opinion, if autoconf still had > 100 bugs/limitations, that could be fixed, one by one, > but if we had 100 of Makefiles/whatever every with only > 10 bugs/limitations that's something nobody could take care of. My priority objective would be to be able to build the basic utilities such as the file/text/shell utilities along with grep/sed/awk and a few others straight out of the box. I was close with your autoconf v2.50, but I'd like to be able to do the same with v2.53 so that the older version could be deprecated. > bye, > Andreas -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 17:52:43 -0500 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: Ncurses build problem On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 10:21:21PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > So, it looks like the difference is down to CFLAGS, but I don't see where > they are set... > > Does the configure script set a default value if nothing exists? The convention is to leave variables such as $CFLAGS alone if they have been set, and otherwise try to determine an appropriate value for them. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:53:38 +0100 From: Michael Zolk Subject: Re: AWK & SED On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 10:43:17AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 01:28:34AM +0100, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I hope it's not a too stupid question, are SED and AWK already > > available as unixos2-like package? I found no zip files in > > unixos2/packages, are they contained somewhere else or are they simply > > not yet packaged? > > They are here:- > > ftp://unixos2.com/pub/unixos2/unixos2-current/unixos2/a1/bin.zip > > along with around 40 other programs Do you really think it is a good idea to lump dozens of completely unrelated executables together in one big pkg? Personally, I would prefer it if I could install the programs I need separately. Michael -- **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:35:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Using START in a shell script Is it possible to START a cmd file form a shell script? I can't find a way of doing it... -- john **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:07:23 -0800 From: mlaitio Subject: Re: giflib Maybe they have removed it after somebody claimed to have patent from gif and started requiring money... That was at least the main driving force why people started to design png-format. Mika John Poltorak wrote: >On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:09:44PM +0000, Dave and Natalie wrote: > >>Has anyone ported giflib (ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/libs/giflib/giflib-4.1.0.tar.gz) ideally with dll lib and headers? >> > >GIFLIB sounds like the sort of thing we ought to have have in UnixOS/2 >since we already have JPEG6, LIBPNG and LIBTIFF which are based on the >Slackware packages, but there doesn't seem to be a package for GIF files >in the distro. > >If anyone is familiar with Slackware can you see a package for providing >GIF support? > > >>Dave >> > > **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:37:40 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ncurses build problem On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 05:47:27PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:35:42PM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > > > I've managed to build NCURSES previously, but I'm trying to do it again > > > in a clean environment without years of accumulated files to determine > > > exactly what it requires. Unfortunately I can't get configure to run. > > > It complains about the C compiler being unable to create executables. > > > > did you regenerate the configure script? > > Yes. > > I've got it running now. The problem was due to $TMP AFAICT. Having said that, I can get NCURSES' configure to run from a standalone CMD file, but if this called from a shell script it fails with the msg above. How can this be? It is using exactly the same code, so there must be something in the environment causing it to succeed or fail. However the error msg about creating executables must be questionable. Is there any way to run this as an isolated test? > > > > > > How do I determine why it's failing? > > > > > > Can I run the same configure test from the command line? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > T.E.Dickey > > > > -- > John > -- John **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:25:43 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Running ./configure On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:37:13PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > > BTW will you be applying any changes from 2.50 into 2.53? I was able to > > build a number of apps with 2.50 which won't work with 2.53 and it's very > > difficult to accomodate multiple Autoconfs... > > I could do it if you think it will help you. :-) As I may have mentioned, it is essential to get the build environment correct and hopefully most other things will fall into place without too much difficulty. We've come a long way in the last year, thanks to great efforts by yourself and a number of other porters. We now have updates for gcc - 3.0.3 make - 3.79.1 grep - 2.4.2 sed - 3.02 awk - 3.1.0 patch - 2.5.4 bash - 2.05a so we must be close to having a definitive tool set. IMV Autoconf is fundamental part of this tool chain because it can make Unix apps work almost out of the box on OS/2, and with the improvement in DOS file system handling in v2.53, I'd like to have something as close as the standard version. There was a reference about how an OS/2 specific M4 module could be called by Autoconf. Maybe this all that needs to be added. In any case I would like to build GREP/SED/AWK/M4 etc with the latest Autoconf but am unable to, although I could with your port of 2.50. The other thing I've been wanting to do provide a package of common DLLs. We have this now in the OS2LIBS package which contains REGEX.DLL and INTL.DLL, but unfortunately not all packages are built to use these DLLs, in particular the GNU FILE and SHELL utils. Also, I can't build INTL.DLL from the latest GETTEXT for some reason > bye, > Andreas -- John **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:21:21 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ncurses build problem On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 04:44:13PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 08:37:40PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 05:47:27PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:35:42PM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've managed to build NCURSES previously, but I'm trying to do it again > > > > > in a clean environment without years of accumulated files to determine > > > > > exactly what it requires. Unfortunately I can't get configure to run. > > > > > It complains about the C compiler being unable to create executables. > > > > > > > > did you regenerate the configure script? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > I've got it running now. The problem was due to $TMP AFAICT. > > > > > > Having said that, I can get NCURSES' configure to run from a standalone > > CMD file, but if this called from a shell script it fails with the msg > > above. > > I'd turn on the shell trace and see what it produced, and compare that > with the working case. The instance which doesn't work generates:- + test -z gcc + echo checking whether the C compiler (gcc . ) works... \c + >&6 checking whether the C compiler (gcc . ) works... + echo configure:995: checking whether the C compiler (gcc . ) works + >&5 + ac_ext=c + ac_cpp=$CPP $CPPFLAGS + ac_compile=${CC-cc} -c $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS conftest.$ac_ext 1>&5 + ac_link=${CC-cc} -o conftest${ac_exeext} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS conftest.$ac_ext $LIBS 1>&5 + cross_compiling= + cat + > conftest.c + << EOF + >&5 + eval echo configure:1011: "${CC-cc} -o conftest${ac_exeext} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS conftest.$ac_ext $LIBS 1>&5" + echo configure:1011: gcc -o conftest.exe . conftest.c 1>&5 + 2>&5 + echo configure: failed program was: + >&5 + cat conftest.c + >&5 + ac_cv_prog_cc_works=no The one which does work shows:- + test -z gcc + echo checking whether the C compiler (gcc -g -O -Zcrtdll) works... \c + >&6 checking whether the C compiler (gcc -g -O -Zcrtdll) works... + echo configure:995: checking whether the C compiler (gcc -g -O -Zcrtdll) works + >&5 + ac_ext=c + ac_cpp=$CPP $CPPFLAGS + ac_compile=${CC-cc} -c $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS conftest.$ac_ext 1>&5 + ac_link=${CC-cc} -o conftest${ac_exeext} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS conftest.$ac_ext $LIBS 1>&5 + cross_compiling= + cat + > conftest.c + << EOF + >&5 + eval echo configure:1011: "${CC-cc} -o conftest${ac_exeext} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS conftest.$ac_ext $LIBS 1>&5" + echo configure:1011: gcc -o conftest.exe -g -O -Zcrtdll conftest.c 1>&5 + 2>&5 + test -s conftest.exe + ac_cv_prog_cc_works=yes So, it looks like the difference is down to CFLAGS, but I don't see where they are set... Does the configure script set a default value if nothing exists? > -- > Thomas E. Dickey -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:39:23 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: New binary package for GNU Bash 2.05a and GNU Texinfo 4.1 On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 04:26:46 +0900, Jun Sawataishi wrote: > - static link with ncurses 5.2 modified by me http://homepage1.nifty.com/jsawa/gnu/ncurses-5.2.zip seems to be corrupt. It is 70k instead of 460k Dave