From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:41:05 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 375 ************************************************** Wednesday 20 November 2002 Number 375 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: gzip/tar max path length : Thomas E. Dickey" 2 RE: Ghostscript 7.05 : Dave Webster 3 RE: Ghostscript 7.05 : Dave Webster 4 RE: Ghostscript 7.05 : Dave Webster 5 Re: gzip/tar max path length : John Poltorak 6 Re: gzip/tar max path length : Lyn St George" 7 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 8 Re: Zope on OS/2 : Adrian Gschwend" 9 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Stefan Neis 10 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Stefan Neis 11 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 12 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 13 Re: gzip/tar max path length : John Poltorak 14 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : John Poltorak 15 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Stefan Neis 16 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 17 RE: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 18 RE: Ghostscript 7.05 : Adrian Gschwend" 19 REGEX.DLL : John Poltorak 20 Re: Ghostscript 7.05 : Christian Hennecke" 21 Re: gzip/tar max path length : Andrew MacIntyre 22 Re: gzip/tar max path length : xyzyx" 23 wvWare : John Poltorak 24 Re: wvWare : John Poltorak 25 Re: REGEX.DLL : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 05:12:01 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: gzip/tar max path length On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:35:30PM +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. > > I've never enountered such a problem before... Going the other way (from GNU tar to POSIX), it is possible to break long filenames (longer than 100 in the former is treated in a nonstandard manner). Perhaps his tar utility isn't GNU tar. -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:45:32 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: Ghostscript 7.05 Also remember there is a native wxWindows for OS/2 that is about 85% complete. Not sure if this would require some of the 15% that is not done yet or not. The core group of wxWindows is planning a 2.4.0 release by the end of the year and wxOS2 will be part of that release. I have not had much time, recently to work on the last bit of wxWindows for OS/2, but I should free up some time over the next month to whittle away more of the unfinished areas like list and tree controls, but what is there is does lot already. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Neis [mailto:neis at cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 5:05 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > 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, About the same amount of work as needed for converting X to PM. The charm of it is, that once you do have wxWindows source code, you can compile it for either X or PM or Win32 or GTK+ or Motif or MacOS or Scitech MGL. But if you are starting with any of those, it requires a complete rewrite to get it to use wxWindows. > Presumably GV can be compiled using gcc, but I don't know if wxWindows can > use gcc... No problem for both of them. > It would be interesting to hear whether anyone has had any success > converting X programs to use wxWindows. Nope. I'm just succesfully writing (commercial) wxWindows programs - but so far without OS/2 version - will have to try how/if the works with the latest version. Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:53:27 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: Ghostscript 7.05 This would be greatly appreciated here. I have been working on wxWindows PM port for over three years now and have about 80-85% of it compete but it still has some holes (native printing, list and tree controls to name a few), and some of what it implemented needs to be cleaned up a bit, however it could be useful, as it sits, for a wide variety of applications. Unfortunately my time is quite limited these days so I can't much more than ensure the CVS development tree compiles. A little help from the OS/2 community, perhaps two or three experienced PM programmers spending a few hours a day for three for four weeks or so, might be able to finish the thing up. -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Gschwend [mailto:ktk at datacomm.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:57 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:19:56 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >Exactly. Works like a charm over here, only problem is that the Linux >executable is relatively large (larger than the Win32 executable, while >it usually happens the other way round, if you directly code to GTK+ >level) what's the reason for that? You don't like the wx stuff into it I guess? >> - OS/2 (well we could do that by ourself I guess) > >Right now, there probably would still be some missing pieces in the PM >port, so I wouldn't claim that to loudly... I agree but of all options we have this would be the one that makes most sense IMHO. I prefer to invest time into wxWindows than maintaining a own port. >Probably yes. But modifying the existing interface to use the new core >as Russell suggests seems even easier... yes but in a long term probably not cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:14:02 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: Ghostscript 7.05 No porblem there. I know next to nothing about this Ghostscript app, but so long as it doesn't use a lot list and tree controls the current state of wxOS2 should work for it if you guys can convince the authors to use wxWindows instead of that odd assortment non-portable tools they are planning. I mean even if it is just WIN32 and Linux/GTK I have no idea why they would NOT want to use something like wxWindows. They'd get those two platforms and instant portability to Motif and MAC and reasonable portablity to OS/2 PM. -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Gschwend [mailto:ktk at datacomm.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:45 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:53:27 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >Unfortunately my time is quite limited these days so I can't much more than >ensure the CVS development tree compiles. A little help from the OS/2 >community, perhaps two or three experienced PM programmers spending a few >hours a day for three for four weeks or so, might be able to finish the >thing up. unfortunately experienced PM programmers are very hard to find nowadays :-/ I am very impressed by your work and I definitely look forward to a 100% finished port of wxWindows. However, I doubt I will be of big help about the remaining parts because so far I never did serious "native" PM programming cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:49:21 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: gzip/tar max path length On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:35:30PM +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. I've never enountered such a problem before... Which tarball has the problem? Is it gzip or tar which breaks? > 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 ... > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:52:17 +0000 From: "Lyn St George" Subject: Re: gzip/tar max path length On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 05:12:01 -0500 (EST), Thomas E. Dickey wrote: >On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 02:35:30PM +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. >> >> I've never enountered such a problem before... > >Going the other way (from GNU tar to POSIX), it is possible to break long >filenames (longer than 100 in the former is treated in a nonstandard >manner). Perhaps his tar utility isn't GNU tar. If I unpack the tarball on Linux, zip it up and then unzip here on OS/2, all is OK. My remote gzip is 1.2.4, GNUtar 1.13.17, local ones on OS/2 are 'gzip 1.2.4' and 'tar 1.10 - AK 2.58'. Hmm, maybe I'll look at the options that Paul mentioned. If you want to see this John, then the tarball is any of those at ftp://ftp.icdevgroup.org/pub/interchange/nightly_build It's quite a nuisance, but not a major league problem, so it will go on the list somewhere ... >-- >T.E.Dickey >http://invisible-island.net >ftp://invisible-island.net > > > - Cheers Lyn St George +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + http://www.zolotek.net .. eCommerce hosting, consulting + http://www.os2docs.org .. some 'How To' stuff ... +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:53:24 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:54:48 +0100, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: >[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. well this doesn't make sense for me because if he would use wxWindows he would get: - a MFC-like window classlibrary that compiles on - Win32 - Linux (with GTK btw so he can save the time to write GTK code) - MaxOS (X) - OS/2 (well we could do that by ourself I guess) Do you have his email address? Really looks like I have to send him some emails :-) >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. as I said, makes no sense to write MFC and GTK versions IMHO. >I only can suggest to forget about moving to wxWindows, rewrite gv from >X11 to PM or similar lunatic ideas. well it would even be easier to port the Win32 MFC version to wxWindows than doing anything else I would say. cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:54:10 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Zope on OS/2 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:26:22 -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: Hi Ted, >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. wow damn cool, thanks a lot for the work! cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:04:51 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > 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, About the same amount of work as needed for converting X to PM. The charm of it is, that once you do have wxWindows source code, you can compile it for either X or PM or Win32 or GTK+ or Motif or MacOS or Scitech MGL. But if you are starting with any of those, it requires a complete rewrite to get it to use wxWindows. > Presumably GV can be compiled using gcc, but I don't know if wxWindows can > use gcc... No problem for both of them. > It would be interesting to hear whether anyone has had any success > converting X programs to use wxWindows. Nope. I'm just succesfully writing (commercial) wxWindows programs - but so far without OS/2 version - will have to try how/if the works with the latest version. Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:19:56 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > well this doesn't make sense for me because if he would use wxWindows > he would get: > > - a MFC-like window classlibrary that compiles on > - Win32 > - Linux (with GTK btw so he can save the time to write GTK > code) > - MaxOS (X) Exactly. Works like a charm over here, only problem is that the Linux executable is relatively large (larger than the Win32 executable, while it usually happens the other way round, if you directly code to GTK+ level) > - OS/2 (well we could do that by ourself I guess) Right now, there probably would still be some missing pieces in the PM port, so I wouldn't claim that to loudly... > as I said, makes no sense to write MFC and GTK versions IMHO. Exactly my feeling, even after using/distributing three or four wxWindows executables I still only see advantages. ;-) > >I only can suggest to forget about moving to wxWindows, rewrite gv from > >X11 to PM or similar lunatic ideas. > > well it would even be easier to port the Win32 MFC version to wxWindows > than doing anything else I would say. Probably yes. But modifying the existing interface to use the new core as Russell suggests seems even easier... Regards, Stefan **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:56:47 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:19:56 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >Exactly. Works like a charm over here, only problem is that the Linux >executable is relatively large (larger than the Win32 executable, while >it usually happens the other way round, if you directly code to GTK+ >level) what's the reason for that? You don't like the wx stuff into it I guess? >> - OS/2 (well we could do that by ourself I guess) > >Right now, there probably would still be some missing pieces in the PM >port, so I wouldn't claim that to loudly... I agree but of all options we have this would be the one that makes most sense IMHO. I prefer to invest time into wxWindows than maintaining a own port. >Probably yes. But modifying the existing interface to use the new core >as Russell suggests seems even easier... yes but in a long term probably not cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:04:46 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:56:47 +0100 (CET), Adrian Gschwend wrote: >what's the reason for that? You don't like the wx stuff into it I >guess? eek, like == link :-) -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:11:44 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: gzip/tar max path length On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:52:17AM +0000, Lyn St George wrote: > If I unpack the tarball on Linux, zip it up and then unzip here on OS/2, > all is OK. My remote gzip is 1.2.4, GNUtar 1.13.17, local ones on OS/2 > are 'gzip 1.2.4' and 'tar 1.10 - AK 2.58'. Hmm, maybe I'll look at the > options that Paul mentioned. If you want to see this John, then the tarball > is any of those at ftp://ftp.icdevgroup.org/pub/interchange/nightly_build I've had a look and the problem seems to be related to occurences of:- ././ at LongLink After UNGZIPing the compressed tarball, the tar file has a lot of files with shortened names and they are immediately prefixed with the at LongLink label, which I've never previously encountered. Maybe GNU TAR v1.10 is unable to handle this, or maybe it's just a missing feature from the OS/2 version. If you have a Unix version of 1.10, give it a try and see if you get the same result. This basically underlines the need for an updated version of TAR on OS/2, but no one seems to have volunteered so far. Wonder if anyone has had any success tracking down the original source code from Andreas Kaiser yet... > - > Cheers > Lyn St George > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > + http://www.zolotek.net .. eCommerce hosting, consulting > + http://www.os2docs.org .. some 'How To' stuff ... > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:00:47 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:41:38PM +0100, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > as I said if I get his email I will ask him politely and if necessary > try to push him towards wxWindows somewhat :-) Adrian, It isn't too difficult to find if you go to the Ghostscipt homepage:- http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ then follow a few links... > Adrian > > > > -- > Adrian Gschwend > at netlabs.org > > ktk [a t] netlabs.org > ------- > Free Software for OS/2 and eCS > http://www.netlabs.org > -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:22:49 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:19:56 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: > > >Exactly. Works like a charm over here, only problem is that the Linux > >executable is relatively large (larger than the Win32 executable, while > >it usually happens the other way round, if you directly code to GTK+ > >level) > > what's the reason for that? You don't like the wx stuff into it I > guess? I _do_ link it in - on both platforms. As wxWindows is not _that_ widely used and rather rapidly eveolving, I'd rather not rely on DLL's/.so's on a foreign system. As it is essentially modelled after the Windows API, this introduces a rather slight overhead on windows and much more overhead on anything else. :-( > >Probably yes. But modifying the existing interface to use the new core > >as Russell suggests seems even easier... > > yes but in a long term probably not If we can convince the author to use wxWindows (and if there are some others able to invest some time in wxWindows' PM port), that would IMHO be the ideal solution, but if the author insists on using GTK+ and MFC, I doubt that it is at all possible to keep up with all his changes if we try to port it to wxWindows. Taking core only changes and adopt the old GUI to it seems easier to me in that case... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:41:38 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:22:49 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >If we can convince the author to use wxWindows (and if there are some >others able to invest some time in wxWindows' PM port), that would IMHO be >the ideal solution, but if the author insists on using GTK+ and MFC, I >doubt that it is at all possible to keep up with all his changes if we >try to port it to wxWindows. Taking core only changes and adopt the old >GUI to it seems easier to me in that case... as I said if I get his email I will ask him politely and if necessary try to push him towards wxWindows somewhat :-) I'm on the wxWindows-Users list for a few days now and I'm very happy with the support from the core developers so I think it would be the right decission for him. cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:45:19 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: RE: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:53:27 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >Unfortunately my time is quite limited these days so I can't much more than >ensure the CVS development tree compiles. A little help from the OS/2 >community, perhaps two or three experienced PM programmers spending a few >hours a day for three for four weeks or so, might be able to finish the >thing up. unfortunately experienced PM programmers are very hard to find nowadays :-/ I am very impressed by your work and I definitely look forward to a 100% finished port of wxWindows. However, I doubt I will be of big help about the remaining parts because so far I never did serious "native" PM programming cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:33:03 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: RE: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:14:02 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >No porblem there. I know next to nothing about this Ghostscript app, but so >long as it doesn't use a lot list and tree controls the current state of >wxOS2 should work for it if you guys can convince the authors to use >wxWindows instead of that odd assortment non-portable tools they are >planning. I mean even if it is just WIN32 and Linux/GTK I have no idea why >they would NOT want to use something like wxWindows. They'd get those two >platforms and instant portability to Motif and MAC and reasonable portablity >to OS/2 PM. just sent him an email and tried to explain *exactly* that in some kind words :-) cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:32:00 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: REGEX.DLL What is the current preferred method of building regex.dll and where do I get the source for it? -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:57:58 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: Ghostscript 7.05 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:41:38 +0100 (CET), Adrian Gschwend wrote: >as I said if I get his email I will ask him politely and if necessary >try to push him towards wxWindows somewhat :-) I'm on the >wxWindows-Users list for a few days now and I'm very happy with the >support from the core developers so I think it would be the right >decission for him. Russell's address is: gsview at ghostgum.com.au Christian Hennecke **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:33:24 +1000 (est) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: gzip/tar max path length On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, xyzyx wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:35:30 +0000, Lyn St George wrote: > > >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. Ran into this myself helping Ted get Zope going :-( > 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. I strongly suspect that tar is the culprit - I'm using the one from GTAR 2.58. > 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? I've seen reference to STAR being buildable on OS/2 in Joerg's release notes (I think for the 1.5 alphas), and I've downloaded the source (1.4.1 & a recent 1.5alpha) to look into. -- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:43:31 -0600 (CST) From: "xyzyx" Subject: Re: gzip/tar max path length On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:11:44 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:52:17AM +0000, Lyn St George wrote: > >> If I unpack the tarball on Linux, zip it up and then unzip here on OS/2, >> all is OK. My remote gzip is 1.2.4, GNUtar 1.13.17, local ones on OS/2 >> are 'gzip 1.2.4' and 'tar 1.10 - AK 2.58'. Hmm, maybe I'll look at the >> options that Paul mentioned. If you want to see this John, then the tarball >> is any of those at ftp://ftp.icdevgroup.org/pub/interchange/nightly_build > >I've had a look and the problem seems to be related to occurences of:- > >././ at LongLink > >After UNGZIPing the compressed tarball, the tar file has a lot of files >with shortened names and they are immediately prefixed with the at LongLink >label, which I've never previously encountered. I think the culprit is the TAR being used to CREATE the archive, not the one being used to extract it. Here is a portion of the GNU TAR docs: "Traditionally, old tars have a limit of 100 characters. GNU tar attempted two different approaches to overcome this limit, using and extending a format specified by a draft of some P1003.1. The first way was not that successful, and involved ` at MaNgLeD at ' file names, or such; while a second approach used `././ at LongLink' and other tricks, yielding better success. In theory, GNU tar should be able to handle file names of practically unlimited length. So, if GNU tar fails to dump and retrieve files having more than 100 characters, then there is a bug in GNU tar, indeed. But, being strictly POSIX, the limit was still 100 characters. For various other purposes, GNU tar used areas left unassigned in the POSIX draft. POSIX later revised P1003.1 ustar format by assigning previously unused header fields, in such a way that the upper limit for file name length was raised to 256 characters. However, the actual POSIX limit oscillates between 100 and 256, depending on the precise location of slashes in full file name (this is rather ugly). Since GNU tar use the same fields for quite other purposes, it became incompatible with the latest POSIX standards. For longer or non-fitting file names, we plan to use yet another set of GNU extensions, but this time, complying with the provisions POSIX offers for extending the format, rather than conflicting with it. Whenever an archive uses old GNU tar extension format or POSIX extensions, would it be for very long file names or other specialities, this archive becomes non-portable to other tar implementations. In fact, anything can happen. The most forgiving tars will merely unpack the file using a wrong name, and maybe create another file named something like ` at LongName', with the true file name in it. tars not protecting themselves may segment violate! Compatibility concerns make all this thing more difficult, as we will have to support all these things together, for a while. GNU tar should be able to produce and read true POSIX format files, while being able to detect old GNU tar formats, besides old V7 format, and process them conveniently. It would take years before this whole area stabilizes... There are plans to raise this 100 limit to 256, and yet produce POSIX conformant archives. Past 256, I do not know yet if GNU tar will go non-POSIX again, or merely refuse to archive the file." regards, paul **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:44:01 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: wvWare Has anyone come across wvWare? It's the home of the wv (WordView) library which provides access to MS DOC files, and is incorporated into AbiWord. According to the homepage:- http://www.wvware.com an OS/2 version exists, but the link to os2.ru is broken. Do any of our Russian friends know what is going on with os2.ru? There used to be a lot of files there but they seem to have disappeared now. I thought I had seen a reference to AbiWord for OS/2 at some point but can't find it now. I'm trying to convert some MS Word files, and AntiWord is not proving very useful. -- John **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:07:56 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: wvWare On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:44:01PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > Has anyone come across wvWare? > > It's the home of the wv (WordView) library which provides access to MS DOC > files, and is incorporated into AbiWord. > > According to the homepage:- > > http://www.wvware.com > > an OS/2 version exists, but the link to os2.ru is broken. Further investigation has led to:- http://switch.dl.sourceforge.net/wvware/wv-0.6-OS2-emx.zip which is the most recent version I can see for OS/2. The later files are all standard Unix tarballs, so maybe there is a chance of building them using the standard Autoconf, Configure, Make procedure... -- John **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:23:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: REGEX.DLL On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:03:37AM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > What is the current preferred method of building regex.dll and where do I > > get the source for it? > > I moved the regex code into unixos2.dll to keep the number > of additional libraries at a low level. > However, I guess, the latest changes of the new GNU regex > can be found in the glibc CVS. ;-) I thought you were putting together a small libary of routines for use with UnixOS/2... I would like to put together some scripts for building some basic apps, and don't think it justifies grabbing glibc which is around 70MB or more when you only want around 10kB. > 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. -- John