From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 04:39:42 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 357 ************************************************** Monday 28 October 2002 Number 357 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Roadmap? : IanM" 2 Re: Roadmap? : John Poltorak 3 Re: Some news : mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) 4 Re: Some news : Adrian Gschwend" 5 Re: Autoconf 2.53: wrongly resolved library search : Thomas Dickey 6 Re: Autoconf 2.53: wrongly resolved library search : Thomas Hoffmann **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:36:12 +1100 (EDT) From: "IanM" Subject: Re: Roadmap? Hi John >ftp://unixos2.com/pub/unixos2/unixos2-current/unixos2/ I'll go through it but I only have /unixos2/ /unixos2-alpha/ /packages/ /dev/ I've added /incoming/ /binary/ /source/ and the "unixport" direcory is full of stuff I need to check against the unixos2 stuff, "unixport" is currently updated automatically from os2site.com, and I'm updating stuff in the /unixos2/ directory as I find it or it comes in. >I even got the developer of Less to post a direct link to what I hoped >would always the most uptodate version of Less for OS/2, which you can see >at:- >http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/download.html ok, restoring the old directory structure. Makes updating the files harder as I have traverse more directorys but I'll setup some subst's for them. >> >Maybe I should try an get my proposed Build Sytem uploaded to unixos2.com >> >so that it can be tested more fully... >> >> Um, yes please, I was going to query you re your build system :-) > >Maybe you could incorporate this build system somewhere on unixos2.com... >It is still work in progress, but I think it's a good starting point for >building apps. I'll give you FTP access tomorrow (past my bedtime) and let you know the name of the directory. I'll give more thoughs/feedback over the next couple of days. Cheers IanM http://www.os2site.com/ I smashed a Window and saw... OS/2. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:05:10 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Roadmap? On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:36:12AM +1100, IanM wrote: > Hi John > > >ftp://unixos2.com/pub/unixos2/unixos2-current/unixos2/ > > I'll go through it but I only have > > /unixos2/ > /unixos2-alpha/ > /packages/ > /dev/ The directory structure above did exist originally, but then was moved to some other place which I had difficulty locating. > I've added > > /incoming/ > /binary/ > /source/ > and the "unixport" direcory is full of stuff I need to check > against the unixos2 stuff, "unixport" is currently updated > automatically from os2site.com, and I'm updating stuff > in the /unixos2/ directory as I find it or it comes in. I think we should make a distinction between archives which fall within the unixos2 directory structure and others. I would like to see unixos2.com as a repository for every conceivable OS/2 port of Unix programs, a kind of 'One-Stop-Shop' for OS/2 users wanting some element of Unix. At the same time I would like to have a UnixOS/2 distro which would be a discrete subset of those programs. In effect UnixOS/2 should be viewed as a 'brand' much like Slackware which has some element of compliance to a set of standards and has been specifically packaged to comply with them. Ideally, those UnixOS/2 packages should be buildable from source, although in some cases, such as TAR this is not possible. In effect, anything which goes into the unixos2 directory should have some degree of 'quality control' done on it, at least in the longer term. > >I even got the developer of Less to post a direct link to what I hoped > >would always the most uptodate version of Less for OS/2, which you can see > >at:- > >http://www.greenwoodsoftware.com/less/download.html > > ok, restoring the old directory structure. > Makes updating the files harder as I have traverse more > directorys but I'll setup some subst's for them. > > >> >Maybe I should try an get my proposed Build Sytem uploaded to unixos2.com > >> >so that it can be tested more fully... > >> > >> Um, yes please, I was going to query you re your build system :-) > > > >Maybe you could incorporate this build system somewhere on unixos2.com... > >It is still work in progress, but I think it's a good starting point for > >building apps. > > I'll give you FTP access tomorrow (past my bedtime) and let you > know the name of the directory. > > I'll give more thoughs/feedback over the next couple of days. I think it is important to get the directory structure right and stick with it so it is worth spending some time thinking about it. > Cheers > IanM > http://www.os2site.com/ > > > I smashed a Window and saw... OS/2. -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:32:22 -0600 From: mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) Subject: Re: Some news On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:25:06 +1100 (EDT) "IanM" wrote: > > > hmm can anyone give me some hints where I find this package now? > > http://unixos2.com/pub/binary/ > ftp://unixos2.com/pub/binary/ > > http://unixos2.com/pub/source/ > ftp://unixos2.com/pub/source/ > > These directories are the "maintainers" directories, from > here I'll setup something to copy over to the "unixos2" > structure. (Once we know what we are doing :) Once upon a time unixos2.com was accessible via FTP. I would visit it periodically. Then FTP access was inhibited -- so I *stopped* using unixos2.com Please consider reinstating FTP access to unixos2.com -- there are some in the OS/2 community who prefer FTP over browser access. mikus **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:33:40 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Some news On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:29:31 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: Hi Andreas, >I've uploaded some packages that comply with our new file >system structure: > > >iconv/2 0.1.2 >a native replacement for GNU iconv hmm can anyone give me some hints where I find this package now? I'm sorry to say that but the directory structure and the webpages are *really* not what I am looking for. I can't find a lot of stuff without klicking endless. cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk at netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:53:10 -0500 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.53: wrongly resolved library search On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:22:37PM +0100, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > > perhaps: > > > > AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, main, [], [ > > AC_CHECK_LIB(termcap, main, [], > > AC_CHECK_LIB(termlib, main))]) > > > > This was the hint I needed, but there have to be even more brackets: > > AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, main, [], [ > AC_CHECK_LIB(termcap, main, [],[ > AC_CHECK_LIB(termlib, main)])]) > > The question remains: Was the first version syntactically wrong and > autoconf 2.13 just tolerated this > or is ac 2.53 buggy? I remember to have read something about the eating both. autoconf 2.5x changes the quoting rules, and is arguably "more" correct. It adds some checks to warn about scripts which are broken by recompiling (but misses some rather annoying cases). I have a few scripts which I've been testing that work comparably well in 2.13 or 2.52 (2.51 had some obvious errors that made it unsuitable for general use; 2.53 had too many initial bug reports for me to bother with; 2.54 doesn't work with non-GNU make - perhaps I'll look closely at 2.55 - though the drawback is that each new version introduces design creep, along with new claims that older versions had bugs). > up of brackets during macro expansion but cannot find this doc right > now. Then I could decide where to report the problem: to the creators of > the above code or to the autoconf maintainers. It's not possible to get an unbiased reply from said maintainers - the reply will almost always include a comment that 2.13 has bugs, and if the thread goes long enough, 1-2 me-too's will chirp in with a comment that all problems with converting are due to bugs in the original configure.in I've been reading the mailing list for several years, and have not yet seen one of them do that. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:22:37 +0100 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.53: wrongly resolved library search Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:53:39PM +0100, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > >>This is to check for an appearant error in autoconf 2.53 when >>trying to resolve a cascaded library search: >> >>A plain library search from a configure.ac like >> >>AC_PREREQ(2.50) >>AC_INIT([cascadebug], [1.0], [thoffman at zappa.sax.de]) >>AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, main) >>AC_OUTPUT >> >>is correctly resolved into the configure sh script. >> >>But a "cascaded" search as from this configure.ac >> >>AC_PREREQ(2.50) >>AC_INIT([cascadebug], [1.0], [thoffman at zappa.sax.de]) >>AC_PROG_CC >>AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, main, [], >> AC_CHECK_LIB(termcap, main, [], >> AC_CHECK_LIB(termlib, main))) > > > perhaps: > > AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, main, [], [ > AC_CHECK_LIB(termcap, main, [], > AC_CHECK_LIB(termlib, main))]) > This was the hint I needed, but there have to be even more brackets: AC_CHECK_LIB(ncurses, main, [], [ AC_CHECK_LIB(termcap, main, [],[ AC_CHECK_LIB(termlib, main)])]) The question remains: Was the first version syntactically wrong and autoconf 2.13 just tolerated this or is ac 2.53 buggy? I remember to have read something about the eating up of brackets during macro expansion but cannot find this doc right now. Then I could decide where to report the problem: to the creators of the above code or to the autoconf maintainers. -- Thomas Hoffmann Telephone: 49-351-4598831 thoffman at zappa.sax.de Dresden, Germany ..sig under construction ...