From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 04:33:50 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 287 ************************************************** Sunday 28 July 2002 Number 287 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Threading support : xyzyx" 2 Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) : Thomas E. Dickey" 3 Re: UnixOS/2 bootstrap : Dave Saville" 4 RE: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) : Dave Webster 5 RE: wxWindows : Dave Webster 6 RE: wxWindows : Dave Webster 7 RE: wxWindows : Dave Webster 8 RE: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) : Nicholas Sheppard 9 Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) : John Poltorak 10 Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) : John Poltorak 11 Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) : lordspeegol" 12 ux2_bootstrap.cmd still fails to build perl.exe : lamikr 13 RE: wxWindows : Steve Wendt 14 Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) : Nicholas Sheppard **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 00:52:50 -0500 (CDT) From: "xyzyx" Subject: Re: Threading support On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:55:48 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >There are some files here:- > >ftp://ftp.netlabs.org/pub/pthreads/ > >but two of them look corrupted... I have a slightly older (but not corrupted) copy from October 1999, if anyone wants/needs. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:10:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > You can also change the font size which many people may not be aware of, > although, AFAIK, Windows gives you an option for changing the typeface but > OS/2 doesn't. however, the fonts that windows offers me are mostly irrelevant since I'm only interested in at most 2 of them... -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:31:46 +0100 (BST) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: UnixOS/2 bootstrap On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:58:20 -0500 (CDT), Maynard wrote: >Hi Dave, > >On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:37:47 +0100 (BST), Dave Saville wrote: > >>On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:12:59 -0500 (CDT), Maynard wrote: > >[misattribution above] > oops :-) >You are correct, Dave. And your method works. I've tweaked it a tad to >accomodate the specific purpose. > >There's a lot of length in this for success verification which was not >coded into last night's netrc solution. > >Who'da ever thought you could get away with type | executable and not >execute < Yeah - I knew unix worked OK with << as I had to write a similar script for a client recently which was where I learnt about the -n switch. It was just a small bit of lateral thinking to try a pipe to ftp's stdin. Of course initially I used cat - duh. Then I remembered type. And the beauty of it is it is 100% compatible with a unixless OS/2 system and is also independent of which flavour of rexx one has. -- Regards Dave Saville Please note new email address dave.saville at ntlworld.com **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:41:29 -0500 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) Actually thinking more of a shell, really. Found a good GUI one in Larsen Commander combined with Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's command interpreter. -----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Sheppard [mailto:nps at zeta.org.au] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 5:48 PM To: 'os2-unix at eyup.org' Subject: RE: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > By the same token is there a decent OS/2 cmd processor out there anywhere. > I've tried Hobbes and many other places. I really would like to get an OS/2 > command line window that I could adjust to something like a 72 x 132 with > full font and color selection like the one on Windows 2000 but I have yet to > find anything decent. Do you mean a shell (cmd.exe, command.exe, etc.) or a replacement VIO window (like an xterm)? Replacing the VIO window seems to be more or less impossible since you would need to replace the Vio*() API and there's no reasonable way of doing that, so far as I can tell. Nik S. **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:45:40 -0500 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows Really? Well that's encouraging. Means we probably will be able to support three compile environments on OS/2, VisualAge, EMX, and Watcom. That should just about cover things. Some are talking about wxWin 3.0 reworking the non GUI components to use strictly STL containers and strings and such. Might be a bit more challenging for OS/2 depending on what they do, precisely. -----Original Message----- From: John Poltorak [mailto:jp at eyup.org] Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 2:53 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: wxWindows On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:04:19AM -0500, Dave Webster wrote: > Actually, I am looking forward to WatcomC++ on OS/2. I thought it was > already available and I hadn't yet taken the plunge. I understand it comes > with complete support for STL??? You may be interested to know that there is an OpenWatcom news server - news.openwatcom.org and there has been some discussion about wxWindows in the newsgroup openwatcom.users.c_c++. Apparently wxWindows 2.2.7 builds fine with OpenWatcom on Windows. -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:46:07 -0500 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows Sounds like you're already there, then! -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Neis [mailto:neis at cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:08 AM To: 'os2-unix at eyup.org' Subject: RE: wxWindows On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > But so far wxWindows for OS/2 works only under VisualAge and EMX and both > have valid and seldom changing makefiles, so I see no need to futz with > autoconf at all, Actually, the EMX makefiles _are_ generated by autoconf&configure. ;-) Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:03:12 -0500 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows I like to use Oracle 7.3.4 as an example. When I install Oracle on Solaris, I go through the usual Unix thing of setting a few environment vars, making sure my cdrom drive is set up and such and the copy the files to where I want them and run make install. I expect to have to do things that way on Solaris (although 8i and 9i have Windows-like Java installers). But on OS/2 and Windows I get the familiar setup or install.exe that bring up the familiar dialogs. That's what I'd expect from any wxWindows base app (not library and not source file installs used by developers, but for end users), a Windows Installer based installation on Windows, an Install.exe using either OS/2 old GUI installer or the newer browser based installations like the Java toolkit uses, and for Linux, the standard Unix make install type setup that Linux users are used to. -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Buening [mailto:andreas.buening at nexgo.de] Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 2:17 PM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: wxWindows Dave Webster wrote: [snip] > The main point is that even though toolkits like wxWindows that offer cross > platform development, does NOT mean that the resultant applications have to > install the same way. That is actually a horrible idea. Applications > should install natively, the way users on each platform expect applications > to be delivered to them. [snip] > Trust me, the best way to guarantee wide spread rejection of a consumer > targeted Open Source Windows-OS/2 application to make a user do "autoconf, > configure, make, make install". That's the quickest route to the Recycle > Box or Shredder. All I want as a Windows or OS/2 user is the classic > Setup.exe or Install.bat icon, nothing else will works if you want wide > spread acceptance. Far far too many Open Source zealots just don't get that. > They (the users) are NOT us (the developers). It it obvious that the "normal user" shouldn't be caused to use autoconf && configure && make && make install. I've just read that the new debian distro contains about 8000 packages. This is something nobody can install by running configure. It would take weeks or months even on a fast computer. Normally everybody will install a precompiled binary package. But the goal is that everybody is _able_ to configure && make every package if he wants to do it for one or another reason. autoconf && automake is intended for the developers of the package only. Unfortunately, most current Unix configure scripts don't work properly on OS/2. Therefore it's the job of the responsible UnixOS/2 maintainer to run autoconf && automake. configure && make && make install is intended for developers and every kind of experienced user who wants or needs to compile that specific package for himself. The real big advantage is that "configure && make && make install" provide a standard interface how to install an arbitrary program. You don't have to read a few hundred kb of docs. You don't have to care about hundreds of different Makefiles made by hundreds of different programmers which support different Makefile targets, env. vars. compiler flags. You don't have to analyze the Makefile to find out what's going on, how to get rid of that damn compiler option or how to put it into the Makefile or why the hell it requires that damn not existing header file. If you encounter the message that program "xyz" needs "foo", then you download "foo", run "./configure --help" to see whether there are any unusual options. Then you set up your standard environment (if not already done), e.g. for Linux: export CFLAGS="-O2" export LDFLAGS="-s" Then you run "configure && make && make install" and that's it. If you really run into trouble then you can still read the docs. That's it. It takes about 5 min to install a package from sources under Linux. Under OS/2 after 5 min I've just opened the 1st readme file, after 30 min I've read the most important docs, after 1 hr I may have just got a vague idea what this stupid Makefile.os2 is doing, after 2 hrs I may have it working, and after 2 more hrs I've found out which damn env. var. was keeping my new executable from working properly. 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 Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:48:11 +1000 (EST) From: Nicholas Sheppard Subject: RE: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > By the same token is there a decent OS/2 cmd processor out there anywhere. > I've tried Hobbes and many other places. I really would like to get an OS/2 > command line window that I could adjust to something like a 72 x 132 with > full font and color selection like the one on Windows 2000 but I have yet to > find anything decent. Do you mean a shell (cmd.exe, command.exe, etc.) or a replacement VIO window (like an xterm)? Replacing the VIO window seems to be more or less impossible since you would need to replace the Vio*() API and there's no reasonable way of doing that, so far as I can tell. Nik S. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:27:29 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 08:10:12PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:48:11AM +1000, Nicholas Sheppard wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > > > > > By the same token is there a decent OS/2 cmd processor out there anywhere. > > > I've tried Hobbes and many other places. I really would like to get an OS/2 > > > command line window that I could adjust to something like a 72 x 132 with > > > full font and color selection like the one on Windows 2000 but I have yet to > > > find anything decent. > > > > Do you mean a shell (cmd.exe, command.exe, etc.) or a replacement VIO > > window (like an xterm)? Replacing the VIO window seems to be more or > > less impossible since you would need to replace the Vio*() API and > > there's no reasonable way of doing that, so far as I can tell. > > You can resize a VIO window (both OS/2 and W2K do this from the command-line). You can also change the font size which many people may not be aware of, although, AFAIK, Windows gives you an option for changing the typeface but OS/2 doesn't. > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:36:48 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:48:11AM +1000, Nicholas Sheppard wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > > > By the same token is there a decent OS/2 cmd processor out there anywhere. > > I've tried Hobbes and many other places. I really would like to get an OS/2 > > command line window that I could adjust to something like a 72 x 132 with > > full font and color selection like the one on Windows 2000 but I have yet to > > find anything decent. > > Do you mean a shell (cmd.exe, command.exe, etc.) or a replacement VIO > window (like an xterm)? Replacing the VIO window seems to be more or > less impossible since you would need to replace the Vio*() API and > there's no reasonable way of doing that, so far as I can tell. Maybe there is some PM program which provides a command prompt... I know EPM can be used in such a way. > Nik S. -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:10:11 -0300 From: "lordspeegol" Subject: Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) My options are: File Commander ZTreeBold 4OS2 Larsen Commander TakeCommand/2 I like 1st three progs. Rod On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:36:48 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Maybe there is some PM program which provides a command prompt... **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:38:57 +0100 From: lamikr Subject: ux2_bootstrap.cmd still fails to build perl.exe As I have already reported couple of time in the last week, ux2_bootstrap.cmd has started to faild for me during the perl-build. Earlier it has worked for me earlier, but not any more. Before running the build, I have cleaned all directories, so there should not be any computer specific dependencies. I have following environment and you can easily test the same if somebody else wants to reproduce it. 1) I have mapped X:-drive with TVFS 2) I have deleted everything from X:\drive 3) md x:\unixos2 4) md x:\unixos2\lib 5) cd x:\unixos2\lib 6) wget ftp://unixos2: at eyup.org/pub/unixos2/build_system/lib/ux2_bootstrap.cmd 7) edit ux2_bootstrap.cmd 7.1) add following line to make ux2_bootstrap.cmd long enought and thus preventing wget re-download it rem rem rem 7.2) change set bldrt=x: set uxrt=x: set osrt=e: 7.3) save ux2_bootstarp.cmd 8) cd x:\unixos2\lib 9) ux2_bootstap.cmd Everything goes well until perl-build start. After a short wail, I will get following error and soon the install will go to loop asking my operating system name... cygwin irix_4 newsos4 sco_2_3_3 uts darwin irix_5 next_3 sco_2_3_4 uwin dcosx irix_6 next_3_0 solaris_2 vmesa dec_osf irix_6_0 next_4 stellar vos dgux irix_6_1 nonstopux sunos_4_0 dos_djgpp isc openbsd sunos_4_1 Which of these apply, if any? [os2] !!! Apparently there is no need to patch Configure. cp: cannot create regular file `t/lib/os2_base.t': Permission denied Operating system name? [os2] Process terminated by SIGSEGV Operating system version? [2] Build Perl for SOCKS? [n] Use the PerlIO abstraction layer? [y] Build a threading Perl? [n] Build Perl for multiplicity? [n] Use which C compiler? [gcc] Mika **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 19:31:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Wendt Subject: RE: wxWindows On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > Installer based installation on Windows, an Install.exe using either OS/2 > old GUI installer or the newer browser based installations like the Java > toolkit uses, and for Linux, the standard Unix make install type setup that Anything but Feature Install (the Java toolkit installer). That one only works with Netscape, not Mozilla, and is buggy as hell. Half of the time it just locks up the machine. **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:20:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicholas Sheppard Subject: Re: Command processors (was: Multiplatform LS) On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:48:11AM +1000, Nicholas Sheppard wrote: >> >> Do you mean a shell (cmd.exe, command.exe, etc.) or a replacement VIO >> window (like an xterm)? Replacing the VIO window seems to be more or >> less impossible since you would need to replace the Vio*() API and >> there's no reasonable way of doing that, so far as I can tell. > Maybe there is some PM program which provides a command prompt... > > I know EPM can be used in such a way. That only works if the programmes being run inside the window use standard input and output, which a parent process can intercept and do as it pleases with. But if the programme being run uses Vio*() calls, there is no way (so far as I know) for the parent process to intercept the calls. E.g. try running the current version of OS/2 Pine in EPM or in an xterm under XFree86/OS2. Nik S. |\ Location: Wollongong, Australia | Anything that can go wrong, will go |\ E-mail: nps at zeta.org.au | wrong. | WWW: http://www.zeta.org.au/~nps | | ---> Cynicism & Negativity | - Murphy's Law