From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 04:41:00 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 374 ************************************************** Tuesday 19 November 2002 Number 374 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 MS DOC -> PDF : John Poltorak 2 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Jack Troughton 3 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Jack Troughton 4 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) 5 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Jack Troughton 6 Re: MS DOC -> PDF : Nicholas Sheppard 7 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Jack Troughton 8 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Jack Troughton 9 Re: installpkg : Michael Zolk 10 Re: config.site : Lyn St George" 11 gzip/tar max path length : Lyn St George" 12 Ghostscript 7.05 : John Poltorak 13 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Christian Hennecke" 14 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Mikkel C. Simonsen" 15 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : John Poltorak 16 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : John Poltorak 17 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : John Poltorak 18 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" 19 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : John Poltorak 20 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" 21 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" 22 Zope on OS/2 : Ted Sikora 23 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Thomas Hoffmann 24 Re: gzip/tar max path length : xyzyx" 25 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 26 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 27 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:26:10 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: MS DOC -> PDF Is there such a thing as unix command line convertor of MS DOC files to PDFs? There's a web site:- http://www.fastpdf.com/ which can do conversion online and I'd like to know how. Can Ghostscript do something like this? -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:37:42 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 John Poltorak wrote: > > The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I > doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it > ourselves... > > Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? You can download the OS/2 binaries from Sourceforge. That's what I did, at any rate. http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ghostscript/gs705os2.zip?download Gotten to by clicking on the Download link at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/ Regards, Jack -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * * Laval Québec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * ------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:08:33 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 John Poltorak wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:37:42AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > >>John Poltorak wrote: >> >>>The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I >>>doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it >>>ourselves... >>> >>>Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? >> >>You can download the OS/2 binaries from Sourceforge. That's what I did, >>at any rate. >> >>http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ghostscript/gs705os2.zip?download >> >>Gotten to by clicking on the Download link at >> >>http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/ > > > Jack, > > Many thanks for the pointer, I didn't realise I could find an OS/2 binary > at Sourceforge. Panic over :-)... Ya:) It's a very good release... I'm very impressed with it. What we do need is to build a new GUI front end onto it, though... Regards, Jack -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * * Laval Québec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * ------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:09:29 -0600 From: email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 In: <3DDBAD5F.6040601 at consultron.ca> On: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:42:23 -0500 Screaming: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 Jack Troughton did rant: +John Poltorak wrote: +> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:08:33AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: +> +>>John Poltorak wrote: [...] +>>It's a very good release... I'm very impressed with it. +>> +>>What we do need is to build a new GUI front end onto it, though... +> +> +> Maybe this is where wxWindows could come to our rescue... +> +> What are the X and Win32 GUIs like? +GSView doesn't do X, it's an xplatorm program for Win32 and OS/2. +However, Russel Lang (the programmer) is not going to do an OS/2 version +anymore. He wants to add a bunch of features to the Win32 version that +are difficult to do on OS/2 because we don't have boatloads of GUI class +libraries like the Windows platform does... so he's going to abandon the +OS/2 version. He is willing to make the source available to an +interested programmer, though. +I'm going to uni (programming) starting in January. Maybe I can do +something with it as a school project or something... What would keep the X program 'gv' from being ported to OS/2? Is it a library problem? If we are going to have an "UnixOS/2" then we should have the X apps supported IMHO. I know there is Xfree for OS/2 but it would be nice not to have to fire up that just to run a PDF/PS viewer. The source is available for gv IIRC. Gene -- +=========================-=>Unix & OS/2<=-=========================+ # Owner and C.E.O. - ERA Computer Consulting - Jackson, TN USA # # eCS,OS/2,UnixWare,OpenServer & Linux Business Computing Solutions # # Please visit our www pages at http://eracc.hypermart.net/ # +===================================================================+ We run IBM OS/2 v.4.00, Revision 9.036 Sysinfo: 35 Processes, 137 Threads, uptime is 0d 10h 1m 29s 591ms **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:42:23 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 John Poltorak wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:08:33AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > >>John Poltorak wrote: >> >>>On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:37:42AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: >>> >>> >>>>John Poltorak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I >>>>>doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it >>>>>ourselves... >>>>> >>>>>Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? >>>> >>>>You can download the OS/2 binaries from Sourceforge. That's what I did, >>>>at any rate. >>>> >>>>http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ghostscript/gs705os2.zip?download >>>> >>>>Gotten to by clicking on the Download link at >>>> >>>>http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/ >>> >>> >>>Jack, >>> >>>Many thanks for the pointer, I didn't realise I could find an OS/2 binary >>>at Sourceforge. Panic over :-)... >> >>Ya:) >> >>It's a very good release... I'm very impressed with it. >> >>What we do need is to build a new GUI front end onto it, though... > > > Maybe this is where wxWindows could come to our rescue... > > What are the X and Win32 GUIs like? GSView doesn't do X, it's an xplatorm program for Win32 and OS/2. However, Russel Lang (the programmer) is not going to do an OS/2 version anymore. He wants to add a bunch of features to the Win32 version that are difficult to do on OS/2 because we don't have boatloads of GUI class libraries like the Windows platform does... so he's going to abandon the OS/2 version. He is willing to make the source available to an interested programmer, though. I'm going to uni (programming) starting in January. Maybe I can do something with it as a school project or something... Regards, Jack -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * * Laval Québec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * ------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:01:34 +1100 (EST) From: Nicholas Sheppard Subject: Re: MS DOC -> PDF On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > Is there such a thing as unix command line convertor of MS DOC files to > PDFs? Antiword (see http://www.winfield.demon.nl) can convert MS Word files to PostScript which Ghostview can then convert to PDF files. Antiword isn't perfect (e.g. it doesn't convert images) but it works well enough. Nicholas S. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:45:17 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 ERACC Lists wrote: > In: <3DDBAD5F.6040601 at consultron.ca> > On: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:42:23 -0500 > Screaming: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 > Jack Troughton did rant: > > +John Poltorak wrote: > +> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:08:33AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > +> > +>>John Poltorak wrote: > [...] > +>>It's a very good release... I'm very impressed with it. > +>> > +>>What we do need is to build a new GUI front end onto it, though... > +> > +> > +> Maybe this is where wxWindows could come to our rescue... > +> > +> What are the X and Win32 GUIs like? > > +GSView doesn't do X, it's an xplatorm program for Win32 and OS/2. > +However, Russel Lang (the programmer) is not going to do an OS/2 version > +anymore. He wants to add a bunch of features to the Win32 version that > +are difficult to do on OS/2 because we don't have boatloads of GUI class > +libraries like the Windows platform does... so he's going to abandon the > +OS/2 version. He is willing to make the source available to an > +interested programmer, though. > > +I'm going to uni (programming) starting in January. Maybe I can do > +something with it as a school project or something... > > What would keep the X program 'gv' from being ported to OS/2? Is it a > library problem? If we are going to have an "UnixOS/2" then we should > have the X apps supported IMHO. I know there is Xfree for OS/2 but it > would be nice not to have to fire up that just to run a PDF/PS > viewer. The source is available for gv IIRC. X basically fulfills the same role that the Presentation Manager does on OS/2. Basically, you're talking about rewriting the entire program anyway, as none of the X calls exist here. That said, it would probably help as it would allow a programmer to see how it was done, but it wouldn't save a lot in the way of labour. Finally... actually doing a full native PM implementation with WPS awareness would result in a much better program, imho:) Regards, Jack -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * * Laval Qu‚bec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * ------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:00:43 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW) wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:09:29 -0600, ERACC Lists wrote: > > >>What would keep the X program 'gv' from being ported to OS/2? Is it a >>library problem? If we are going to have an "UnixOS/2" then we should >>have the X apps supported IMHO. I know there is Xfree for OS/2 but it >>would be nice not to have to fire up that just to run a PDF/PS >>viewer. The source is available for gv IIRC. > > There are other X servers for OS/2: Everblue (which is based on XFree > for OS/2) and Hoblink (commercial product included in eCS). > Both directly display the application as Presentation Manager window. Is Everblue out? I was under the impression that it was basically a dead project... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * * Laval Québec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * ------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:08:50 +0100 From: Michael Zolk Subject: Re: installpkg On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:25:56AM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > The idea of /bin, /lib and /sbin is that _all_ stuff that is > necessary for the installation has to be there. If you really need > another rexx script for the installation we must add it to /bin > or /sbin. Yes. According to the FHS, such "internal binaries" should be placed in /usr/lib/ (or /lib/ in this case), but this would require another addition to PATH. So the right place would indeed be /bin or /sbin. [ install scripts that require additional packages ] > > This is indeed a problem. I don't know how all the Linux distros handle > > this. > > Hmm, good question. Does anybody know? I know that the Debian policy requires that all programs that are marked 'Essential' must work properly even without configuration. > > This is the reason why all the scripts in ux2_base are Rexx scripts - > > they only need the stuff that's already present on an OS/2 system. I'm not > > sure if we should simply define that install scripts _have to be_ Rexx > > scripts. > > No, not in general. My idea for the installation process is as follows: > > 0) - Change OS/2 variables (PATH, LIBPATH, ...) > - Add Unix/Posix variables (HOME, LOGNAME, ...) > - Add UnixOS/2 variables (UNIXROOT, TMPDIR) > - Reboot if necessary All this is done by unzipping the ux2_base package and running doinst.cmd. > 1) installpkg puts the UnixOS/2 core packages (/bin and /lib) > in place. > All installation scripts and file lists are stored > somewhere in /var without executing them. After this has been > done we have all necessary installation tools available > (That's the definition of /bin and /lib: necessary for installation > and maintainance). > 2) Run "ux2-update" the first time which a) executes those scripts > and b) updates some databases/whatever. > 3) Now the base system is working and it's possible to install > any number of other packages by installpkg and run "ux2-update" > again. Hmm... the more I think about it... :) The only Linux distro that I *really* know good enough, Debian, seems to do it in a similar way. First all packages are unpacked, when the files are in place the packages are configured. It would only be necessary to delay the configuration for all the stuff that's in /bin, for everything else ux2-update could be called directly by installpkg. > Because of that all install scripts can rely on every tool that > is in /bin. I.e. sh or even sed scripts are allowed but perl scripts > are not (because perl is in /usr/bin). This set of "essential" packages should be kept as small as possible. Furthermore, it's important to choose an install method that makes life easier for package maintainers. It would be good to get some more input on this issue. > REQUIRES pkgname > libunixos2 is just a special lib. I suggest to use no REQUIRES > keyword for any package that is in /bin or /lib. It's hard sometimes > to find out which one of the GNU tools is used and which one not. If we use some kind of priority system for the packages, then I agree that it's not necessary to list all of the core packages as required in the PKGINFO files of all packages. > SCRIPT {PREINST|POSTINST|POSTDEL} scriptname > At least the POSTINST scripts can be sh scripts. Where are these > scripts stored? How do you avoid name collisions? The scripts are copied to /var/lib/unixos2/scripts/. The scripts there are named .postinst. The at the end is used so that it's possible to have more than one script of the same type. > Is it possible to execute a single command like > "install-info --info-dir=/usr/share/info /usr/share/info/foo.info"? > About every package requires a line like this for its .info file. At the moment only when you put it in an install script. > FILE pathname [owner group mode] > Adding hundreds of file to PKGINFO could be very time consuming. > What about "FILE ALL" which installs all files automatically? It's good to have some redundant information like this in the PKGINFO file. It could be used, among other things, to detect corrupted packages. Of course it would be good to have a 'mkpkginfo' command that adds all the files in a directory tree to a PKGINFO file. > What is the sense of "owner"? Currently, we have no file "owner". > If we had this feature it would be possible to install files for > another user (e.g. "root") but after that we might have no access > to these files anymore, i.e. we wouldn't even be able to uninstall > them. It has been discussed some time ago, that Holger's libemu could be able to emulate things like file owners, symlinks, device nodes IIRC. At the moment this is not working, it's mainly there for future updates :) > How do I specify "mode"? E.g. how to produce a readonly file? Access permissions are specified using the 3-digit octal notation known from Unix. > What about a "NOINSTALL file" keyword. A package might contain > some files that shouldn't be installed (a COPYING file or a special > README). PKGINFO has the "NOINSTALL" attribute by default. All files that are not listed in one of the "FILE ..." lines have this attribute. > What about a "OVERWRITE {YES|NO}" keyword. If the file structure > of a package changes between different releases then the new package > gets "OVERWRITE NO" which means the old package must be uninstalled > first. Even the "-f" switch won't install the new version over > the old one (to avoid that files from the old version are left). Upgrading existing packages to a newer version is one of the areas that needs some thoughts :) > CONFFILE pathname [owner group mode] > What exactly is the difference between CONFFILE and FILE? > Will the user be prompted for every CONFFILE as if it were readonly? That's the plan :) The keyword CONFFILE should be used for configuration files that can be modified by the user. installpkg should avoid to simply overwrite these files when possibly the user has invested lots of time to fiddle with his configuration. Michael -- **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:32:58 +0000 From: "Lyn St George" Subject: Re: config.site On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:01:02 +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: >Don't expect too much. It's not that spectacular. >If anybody complains "configure screws up my PATH" or "configure >can't find executables" just tell him to set CONFIG_SITE instead >of starting yet another discussion about this topic. ;-) > > >-------------------------- ># This file is part of UnixOS/2. It is used by every autoconf generated ># configure script if you set CONFIG_SITE=%UNIXROOT%/etc/unixos2/config.site. ># You can add your own cache variables at the end of this file. > >echo "Loading UnixOS/2 config.site" > ># Executables end on ".exe". You may add other executable extensions. ># Supported since autoconf 2.53 (?). >test -n "$ac_executable_extensions" || ac_executable_extensions=".exe" > ># Replace all '\' by '/' in your PATH environment variable >ux2_save_IFS="$IFS" >IFS="\\" >ux2_temp_PATH= >for ux2_temp_dir in $PATH; do > IFS="$ux2_save_IFS" > if test -z "$ux2_temp_PATH"; then > ux2_temp_PATH="$ux2_temp_dir" > else > ux2_temp_PATH="$ux2_temp_PATH/$ux2_temp_dir" > fi >done >export PATH="$ux2_temp_PATH" >unset ux2_temp_PATH >unset ux2_temp_dir >unset ux2_save_IFS Is there something that can be added into config.site so as get around that annoying "cannot create while cross-compiling" error? Ie. to tell the config file that gcc is *not* a cross-compiler? >-------------------------- > >[snip] > > >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. > > - Cheers Lyn St George +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + http://www.zolotek.net .. eCommerce hosting, consulting + http://www.os2docs.org .. some 'How To' stuff ... +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:35:30 +0000 From: "Lyn St George" Subject: gzip/tar max path length Hi all I've just run into a problem, when using gzip/tar to unpack a unix tarball, that the maximum path length allowed on OS/2 is 100 characters. All other file name or path characters after this limit are removed. Is there any solution, or even just a kludge, known for this? Cheers - Cheers Lyn St George +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + http://www.zolotek.net .. eCommerce hosting, consulting + http://www.os2docs.org .. some 'How To' stuff ... +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:15:52 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Ghostscript 7.05 The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it ourselves... Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? -- John **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:41:50 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:15:52 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I >doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it >ourselves... > >Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? It's running quite happily here. The latest beta release 7.32 is also available for OS/2. Christian Hennecke **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:47:03 +0100 From: "Mikkel C. Simonsen" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 John Poltorak wrote: > > The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I > doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it > ourselves... > > Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? I have built the standard AFPL GS releases many times with no problems. Do the GNU releases also come with an os2.mak makefile? Best regards, Mikkel C. Simonsen **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:49:16 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:37:42AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I > > doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it > > ourselves... > > > > Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? > > You can download the OS/2 binaries from Sourceforge. That's what I did, > at any rate. > > http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ghostscript/gs705os2.zip?download > > Gotten to by clicking on the Download link at > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/ Jack, Many thanks for the pointer, I didn't realise I could find an OS/2 binary at Sourceforge. Panic over :-)... > Regards, > > Jack > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * > * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * > * Laval Québec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * > ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:53:57 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Christian Hennecke wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:15:52 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I > >doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it > >ourselves... > > > >Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? > > It's running quite happily here. The latest beta release 7.32 is also > available for OS/2. That's good to know - although I've just noticed 7.33 was released a couple of days ago... > Christian Hennecke > -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:24:41 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:08:33AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:37:42AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > > > >>John Poltorak wrote: > >> > >>>The latest Ghostscript (v7.05) only seems to be available via GNU and I > >>>doubt whether we will see an OS/2 version again unless we can build it > >>>ourselves... > >>> > >>>Has anyone ever attempted to build GS or GSview ? > >> > >>You can download the OS/2 binaries from Sourceforge. That's what I did, > >>at any rate. > >> > >>http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/ghostscript/gs705os2.zip?download > >> > >>Gotten to by clicking on the Download link at > >> > >>http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/ > > > > > > Jack, > > > > Many thanks for the pointer, I didn't realise I could find an OS/2 binary > > at Sourceforge. Panic over :-)... > > Ya:) > > It's a very good release... I'm very impressed with it. > > What we do need is to build a new GUI front end onto it, though... Maybe this is where wxWindows could come to our rescue... What are the X and Win32 GUIs like? > Regards, > > Jack > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * > * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * > * Laval Québec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * > ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 17:43:28 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:09:29 -0600, ERACC Lists wrote: >What would keep the X program 'gv' from being ported to OS/2? Is it a >library problem? If we are going to have an "UnixOS/2" then we should >have the X apps supported IMHO. I know there is Xfree for OS/2 but it >would be nice not to have to fire up that just to run a PDF/PS >viewer. The source is available for gv IIRC. There are other X servers for OS/2: Everblue (which is based on XFree for OS/2) and Hoblink (commercial product included in eCS). Both directly display the application as Presentation Manager window. Sebastian **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:02:53 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:45:17AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > ERACC Lists wrote: > > +> What are the X and Win32 GUIs like? > > > > +GSView doesn't do X, it's an xplatorm program for Win32 and OS/2. > > +However, Russel Lang (the programmer) is not going to do an OS/2 version > > +anymore. He wants to add a bunch of features to the Win32 version that > > +are difficult to do on OS/2 because we don't have boatloads of GUI class > > +libraries like the Windows platform does... so he's going to abandon the > > +OS/2 version. He is willing to make the source available to an > > +interested programmer, though. > > > > +I'm going to uni (programming) starting in January. Maybe I can do > > +something with it as a school project or something... > > > > What would keep the X program 'gv' from being ported to OS/2? Is it a > > library problem? If we are going to have an "UnixOS/2" then we should > > have the X apps supported IMHO. I know there is Xfree for OS/2 but it > > would be nice not to have to fire up that just to run a PDF/PS > > viewer. The source is available for gv IIRC. > > X basically fulfills the same role that the Presentation Manager does on > OS/2. Basically, you're talking about rewriting the entire program > anyway, as none of the X calls exist here. That said, it would probably > help as it would allow a programmer to see how it was done, but it > wouldn't save a lot in the way of labour. Finally... actually doing a > full native PM implementation with WPS awareness would result in a much > better program, imho:) This is where I think wxWindows could be useful since it supports each platforms native controls. I don't know what is involved in converting the source from normal X to wxWindows, but as I understand it, all it requires is a recompile on the target platform, and it will you the pertinent controls for that platform so you don't specifically need to convert GV to PM. Presumably GV can be compiled using gcc, but I don't know if wxWindows can use gcc... It would be interesting to hear whether anyone has had any success converting X programs to use wxWindows. > Regards, > > Jack > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * > * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * > * Laval Qu‚bec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * > ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:20:37 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:00:43 -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: >Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW) wrote: >> There are other X servers for OS/2: Everblue (which is based on XFree >> for OS/2) and Hoblink (commercial product included in eCS). >> Both directly display the application as Presentation Manager window. >Is Everblue out? I was under the impression that it was basically a dead >project... There were updates some weeks ago. And as far as I heard on WSE there is not SO much missing to get Gimp running. I wanted to give some feedback to accelerate the development, but my mebership is still pending on everblue-dev. I don't like to use VPC/2 for everything. So Everblue and Odin are still important tasks. Sebastian **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:32:12 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:02:53 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >I don't know what is involved in converting the source from normal X to >wxWindows, but as I understand it, all it requires is a recompile on the >target platform, and it will you the pertinent controls for that platform >so you don't specifically need to convert GV to PM. I doubt that is possible: From http://www.wxwindows.org/intro.htm "wxWindows is not a translator from one GUI from another; it cannot take a Motif application and generate a Windows application, for example. You need to learn a new API. However, the wxWindows API has been praised for its intuitiveness and simplicity, and can be far easier to learn and use than a native GUI API such as Motif or Windows. Porting from MFC is particularly easy due to its similarity: one user has ported his CASE tool from MFC to wxWindows in a couple of weeks." wxWindows is C++, MFC is C++ X11 is C, PM is C Sebastian **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:26:22 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Zope on OS/2 I ported Zope 2.6.0 to OS/2 running on Python 2.2.2 Now that's cutting edge dude. Unix and Win32 have issues with 2.2.2 and use 2.1.3. Been up 6 Hours without a glitch. Log file and debug are totally clean. You can check it out here: http://dumbdog.org/os2/content/ I put the bin with complete install instructions in OS2Ports.com and dumbdog.org 's incoming and in a Zope directory in unix/internet/Zope on OS2Ports. Jeff Robinson's LFSBrowser is next. Thanks to Andrew MacIntyre the OS/2 Python guy who helped initiate this project and Jeff Robinson. It's a true testament to the UnixOS2 build environment. The build flew right through with absolutely no errors using bash and the unix build script after some initial tweaking to the src. Andrew's Python port is a real gem. -- Ted Sikora tsikora at ntplx.net **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:54:48 +0100 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 Since I do updates of the German help texts for GSview from time to time I asked Russell in June this year about the prospects for the OS/2 version. They are rosy, as already some people noted. Just to correct some misconceptions (e.g. "GSView doesn't do X": it does do X since some releases already), I would like to include a short excerpt from one of Russell's mails: [Russell:] ...... I am rewriting GSview to remove global variables, make it more modular and easier to maintain, to use MFC for Windows, gtk+ 2 for Linux, and to make the core code portable enough that it can be used on other operating systems. From the user perspective, the most noticeable change will be caching of pages. It will be possible to go back one or two pages in non-DSC documents. At this stage, I do not intend to write an OS/2 version. The major reason is I feel it is more important to spend my limited time on the Windows and gtk+ versions. It would be possible to take the OS/2 GUI code of the current version and modify it to use the new core code. If someone else is willing to do this I will certainly include it in the main distribution. I may even do this myself, but not in the near future. If there is not an OS/2 version of the rewritten GSview, I will continue to compile the current GSview to keep it running with Ghostscript. ...... So, GSview will keep running with newer Ghostscript versions, with or without the new Win/Linux bells and whistles. If the OS/2 community wants to keep current, then a real programmer should contact Russell. I only can suggest to forget about moving to wxWindows, rewrite gv from X11 to PM or similar lunatic ideas. BTW: there IS gv for OS/2, but you have to fire up a X server for this. John Poltorak wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:45:17AM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > >>ERACC Lists wrote: > > >>>+> What are the X and Win32 GUIs like? >>> >>>+GSView doesn't do X, it's an xplatorm program for Win32 and OS/2. >>>+However, Russel Lang (the programmer) is not going to do an OS/2 version >>>+anymore. He wants to add a bunch of features to the Win32 version that >>>+are difficult to do on OS/2 because we don't have boatloads of GUI class >>>+libraries like the Windows platform does... so he's going to abandon the >>>+OS/2 version. He is willing to make the source available to an >>>+interested programmer, though. >>> >>>+I'm going to uni (programming) starting in January. Maybe I can do >>>+something with it as a school project or something... >>> >>>What would keep the X program 'gv' from being ported to OS/2? Is it a >>>library problem? If we are going to have an "UnixOS/2" then we should >>>have the X apps supported IMHO. I know there is Xfree for OS/2 but it >>>would be nice not to have to fire up that just to run a PDF/PS >>>viewer. The source is available for gv IIRC. >> >>X basically fulfills the same role that the Presentation Manager does on >>OS/2. Basically, you're talking about rewriting the entire program >>anyway, as none of the X calls exist here. That said, it would probably >>help as it would allow a programmer to see how it was done, but it >>wouldn't save a lot in the way of labour. Finally... actually doing a >>full native PM implementation with WPS awareness would result in a much >>better program, imho:) > > > This is where I think wxWindows could be useful since it supports each > platforms native controls. > > I don't know what is involved in converting the source from normal X to > wxWindows, but as I understand it, all it requires is a recompile on the > target platform, and it will you the pertinent controls for that platform > so you don't specifically need to convert GV to PM. > > Presumably GV can be compiled using gcc, but I don't know if wxWindows can > use gcc... > > > It would be interesting to hear whether anyone has had any success > converting X programs to use wxWindows. > > >>Regards, >> >>Jack >> >>-- >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * >>* http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * >>* Laval Qu‚bec Canada news://news.consultron.ca * >>------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:00:01 -0600 (CST) From: "xyzyx" Subject: Re: gzip/tar max path length On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:35:30 +0000, Lyn St George wrote: >Hi all > >I've just run into a problem, when using gzip/tar to unpack >a unix tarball, that the maximum path length allowed on OS/2 >is 100 characters. All other file name or path characters after >this limit are removed. > >Is there any solution, or even just a kludge, known for this? AFAIK the limit is dependant on filesystem. HPFS/JFS should be 255 chars or so. FAT of course is much less :) 100 seems odd, it may be a problem with the TAR program itself then. Perhaps try some other TAR program, like UNTGZ? There's also a program called STAR by Joerg Schilling (same guy who made cdrecord) which is supposed to be better + more standards compliant than the GNU TAR. Dunno if there's been an OS/2 port? Paul **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:12:07 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:42:23 -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: >GSView doesn't do X, it's an xplatorm program for Win32 and OS/2. >However, Russel Lang (the programmer) is not going to do an OS/2 version >anymore. He wants to add a bunch of features to the Win32 version that >are difficult to do on OS/2 because we don't have boatloads of GUI class >libraries like the Windows platform does... so he's going to abandon the >OS/2 version. He is willing to make the source available to an >interested programmer, though. > >I'm going to uni (programming) starting in January. Maybe I can do >something with it as a school project or something... Anyone knows what he is using? If he does MFC he would rather use wxWindows indeed because it's *the* toolkit used to port MFC Win32 apps. Using it on my diploma work right now on Linux, quite nice and not that hard to learn. However, the rendering would definitely be tricky to implement I guess. cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:22:00 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:00:43 -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: >Is Everblue out? I was under the impression that it was basically a dead >project... Brian Smith finaly did some fixes that were necessary but he is busy as always :-) Ken Ames told me that he wants to give it a try in the future. The first goal is to get GIMP to work with Everblue. Also to port the latest GIMP version. People with porting know how are for sure welcome to join :-) cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:22:47 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:20:37 +0100 (CET), Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW) wrote: >I wanted to give some feedback to accelerate the development, but my >mebership is still pending on everblue-dev. huh? Have to check that then cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org