From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 04:42:45 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 388 ************************************************** Tuesday 03 December 2002 Number 388 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Autoconf : Thomas E. Dickey" 2 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 3 MRTG : John Poltorak 4 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 5 PS2PDF : John Poltorak 6 Ghostscript v8 : John Poltorak 7 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Hakan" 8 Autoconf : John Poltorak 9 Re: Autoconf : John Poltorak 10 Re: MRTG : John Poltorak 11 Re: PS2PDF : John Poltorak 12 Re: PS2PDF : Mikkel C. Simonsen" 13 GNU MailUtils : John Poltorak 14 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Hakan" 15 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 16 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 17 Top posting : IanM" 18 Python version : John Poltorak 19 Re: Python version : John Poltorak 20 Permissions problem : John Poltorak 21 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Illya Vaes 22 Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 : John Poltorak 23 Re: MRTG : VE" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 06:18:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas E. Dickey" Subject: Re: Autoconf On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > The latest version of Autoconf has just been released and is available > from:- > > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.57.tar.gz > > > Should I expect this to work correctly on OS/2, or does it need to > amendments? no OS/2-specific changes have been made since 2.54 (what is your current baseline?) -- T.E.Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:52:26 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Not sure what you want or why you persist. I have not used VA4 for at least two years. At that time I was using a Deja newsgroup to get some minimal level of support and that is where all the information I ever got concerning VA4 came from. I no longer care anything about this buggy, dead, compiler. I don't use it. Other than you, I know no one else that uses it. wxWindows will NOT support this compiler unless YOU do it. So unless you have something to add to the general wxWindows discussion, consider this sub thread of VA4, done. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:06:42 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: MRTG What is the most recent version of MRTG which will work on OS/2? For details of MRTG see: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/mrtg/ -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:12:35 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Start a new thread, then. This thread concerns the current state of wxWindows as it pertains to OS/2. One of those states is that it only supports two compilers, VA 3.0 FP8 and EMX. It did support VA4 at one time, but maintaining that was too time consuming for an Open Source project not designed to be use by such an odd and unique environment. If you love VA4 so much and want to use wxWindows in that environment then you are going to have to figure it out for yourself. Whatever infomation I had on VA4 came from newgroups over two years ago and are long gone by now. It is buggy, it is quirky, it is a resource hog, it has a steep learning curve and requires a full paradigm shift to use it, it is out of support, and it is used by only a small handful of people worldwide. That was MY input on VA4. Whether you like that or not is your problem. End of discussion. -----Original Message----- From: Hakan [mailto:agents at meddatainc.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:38 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Because I prefer a compiler which is conformant with standard C++ (despite the shortcomings of the IDE itself)? Because you made a statement re the bugginess of version 4 which I have not been able to verify by visiting the IBM APAR website, nor have you been able to provide a pointer to where I can research this further? Because you seem to have taken the IBM concept of the codestore as a personal affront -- I have not had any problem agreeing to the shortcomings of this concept when it comes to moving traditionally structured source files between systems/compilers but I have also explained to you that.it is possible to work around it by modifiying the ICC file? Because there are other people using version 4, at least one of whom has also participated in this discussion, who also might have an interest in knowing where they might run into problems, if they have not already done so? I have not asked you to support this compiler in the context of wxWindows, everyone is free to use whichever compiler they prefer. But this is not a discussion of the merits,or lack thereof, of wxWindows -- I am simply interested in learning more about exactly where people have found version 4 to fall short (outside the shortcomings of the IDE itself.) Unfortunately you seem to take it personally when I try to get to the facts behind your statements. On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:52:26 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >Not sure what you want or why you persist. I have not used VA4 for at least >two years. At that time I was using a Deja newsgroup to get some minimal >level of support and that is where all the information I ever got concerning >VA4 came from. > >I no longer care anything about this buggy, dead, compiler. I don't use it. >Other than you, I know no one else that uses it. wxWindows will NOT support >this compiler unless YOU do it. > >So unless you have something to add to the general wxWindows discussion, >consider this sub thread of VA4, done. > > **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:19:59 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: PS2PDF What is the recommended way of converting a postscript file to a PDF? And where would I find such a converter? -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:30:40 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Ghostscript v8 In case anyone is not aware, Ghostscript v8 has been released and is available here:- ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/AFPL/gs800/gs800os2.zip -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:37:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Hakan" Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Because I prefer a compiler which is conformant with standard C++ (despite the shortcomings of the IDE itself)? Because you made a statement re the bugginess of version 4 which I have not been able to verify by visiting the IBM APAR website, nor have you been able to provide a pointer to where I can research this further? Because you seem to have taken the IBM concept of the codestore as a personal affront -- I have not had any problem agreeing to the shortcomings of this concept when it comes to moving traditionally structured source files between systems/compilers but I have also explained to you that.it is possible to work around it by modifiying the ICC file? Because there are other people using version 4, at least one of whom has also participated in this discussion, who also might have an interest in knowing where they might run into problems, if they have not already done so? I have not asked you to support this compiler in the context of wxWindows, everyone is free to use whichever compiler they prefer. But this is not a discussion of the merits,or lack thereof, of wxWindows -- I am simply interested in learning more about exactly where people have found version 4 to fall short (outside the shortcomings of the IDE itself.) Unfortunately you seem to take it personally when I try to get to the facts behind your statements. On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:52:26 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >Not sure what you want or why you persist. I have not used VA4 for at least >two years. At that time I was using a Deja newsgroup to get some minimal >level of support and that is where all the information I ever got concerning >VA4 came from. > >I no longer care anything about this buggy, dead, compiler. I don't use it. >Other than you, I know no one else that uses it. wxWindows will NOT support >this compiler unless YOU do it. > >So unless you have something to add to the general wxWindows discussion, >consider this sub thread of VA4, done. > > **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:41:04 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Autoconf The latest version of Autoconf has just been released and is available from:- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.57.tar.gz Should I expect this to work correctly on OS/2, or does it need to amendments? -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:56:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Autoconf On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:18:31AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > The latest version of Autoconf has just been released and is available > > from:- > > > > > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.57.tar.gz > > > > > > Should I expect this to work correctly on OS/2, or does it need to > > amendments? > > no OS/2-specific changes have been made since 2.54 > (what is your current baseline?) I know Andreas made patches to three files for 2.53 but I haven't checked things since and don't know if those patches have been rolled into the main code.. I've just looked at libs.m4 and don't see any mention of:- +dnl special treatment for EMX (OS/2) which was one of the patches for 2.53, so I'm not sure if this was ever included, or the need for it obviated by other changes... > -- > T.E.Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:32:42 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: MRTG On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:57:16PM +1100, VE wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:06:42 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >What is the most recent version of MRTG which will work on OS/2? > > > version 2.8.8 ? Is the porter still around? Wonder if the latest version (2.9.26b) would build ... -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:41:51 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: PS2PDF On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:16:08PM +0100, Mikkel C. Simonsen wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > What is the recommended way of converting a postscript file to a PDF? > > Download the software you mentioned in another post (Ghostscript v8), > and read the manual. > > > And where would I find such a converter? > > Read your own messages ;-) Yes, I realised that PS2PDF was included in Ghostscript after my initial inquiry... An alternative is to use:- http://www.ps2pdf.com and this does not involve downloading and installing any software or reading an extensive set of instructions :-)... > Best regards, > > Mikkel C. Simonsen -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 14:16:08 +0100 From: "Mikkel C. Simonsen" Subject: Re: PS2PDF John Poltorak wrote: > > What is the recommended way of converting a postscript file to a PDF? Download the software you mentioned in another post (Ghostscript v8), and read the manual. > And where would I find such a converter? Read your own messages ;-) Best regards, Mikkel C. Simonsen > > -- > John **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:33:46 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: GNU MailUtils Has anyone ever come across the GNU MailUtils before? I've only just come across it and it does look quite interesting with its assortment of daemons, clients and various command line tools including mail filtering. It's available from:- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/mailutils/mailutils-0.1.tar.gz I'd really like to try some of these programs out... -- John **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 16:50:25 -0500 (EST) From: "Hakan" Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 The allegations of being an MS agent are really too ridiculous to refute but if you bothered to look at the header of my messages you would have found I am using an OS/2 mailer, if you did a search in the OS/2 newsgroups you would have found occasional posts from me, and, if you had followed the exchange here you would have found I had no opinion on the merits of wxWindows (in the current exchange.) I don't think MS needs to spend any time worrying about what is going on in the Unix-OS/2 community, they have bigger fish to fry. Further, had you paid attention, you would have found that the major points of the discussion concerned the number/severity of the bugs in VAC++ 4 where Dave made a statement that there are 1000s of bugs/APARs (which so far seems to be hearsay), whether it was possible to maintain the traditional structure of C++ files when using the codestore used in version 4 (yes, it is, and also I believe the codestore concept continues to be used in both versions 5 and 6 of the C++ compiler for AIX), and the importance/level of conformance with standard C++ (an issue I believe most C++ programmers are interested in.) Dave simply made some statements I challenged and I was hoping for good answers (which in my opinion, I did not get.) I also clearly stated that everyone is free to use whichever compiler they desire, my interest was in getting a better handle on the bugs in version 4 since I have just begun using it for a couple of projects. With that said, and if you have been a member of this group for a few months, you would have seen, when we had that discussion a few months ago, that I have been skeptical towards wxWindows as to its ability to increase software development for OS/2. I am lukewarm towards cross-platform environment and have yet to see any attempt at that which makes me excited (cf. Open32). At that time I did ask for examples of OS/2 programs, even a small one, which showed off wxWindows. To the best of my recollection, we were never supplied with one. I also have a recollection that someone else asked the very same question over the past few days but again, no examples were offered. The latter, however, has nothing to do with the merits and shortcomings of VAC++ 4. On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:04:58 CET, Illya Vaes wrote: >** Reply to note from "Hakan" Wed, 04 Dec 2002 >10:37:38 -0500 (EST) >>Because >>Because >>Because >>Because >[Yet another full quote below the top posting, deleted] > >This is starting to look and sound a lot like an advocacy group, with you >filling the role of the Microsoft "agent" (agents at meddatainc.com as your mail >address is probably just a coincident) with you sudden insistence on >irrelevant details, "desire" to use the latest and greatest "standard" and the >continued stubborn insistence on using the Microsoft "standard" of top-posting >and full quoting of irrelevant passages, despite several requests to the >contrary. >I guess Dave is a volunteer dedicating his time for open source software (a >no-no for MS agents) on the wrong platform (ditto) who should obviously be >harassed by "his target audience" (or people acting as if they are), so that >he will drop it disillusioned and return to the fold, to the flock of Wintel >sheep. > >If this is very wrong, please be advised that this impression is what _your_ >actions give. If you don't want to give that impression, you might try another >attitude (if it is, go away MS agent). > >-- >Illya Vaes (illya at vaeshiep.demon.nl) >"Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda > > **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:42:55 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Compile the samples in the distributions. Those are the only OS/2 programs that can show what wx does under OS/2 As for wxWindows apps, go to www.wxWindows.org and you will find examples of dozens of very serious and commercially selling applciations written using wxWindows and listings of literally HUNDREDS of applications that use it. It has also been widely reviewed in the trade pubs and is noted for being the most feature rich cross platform toolkit available on the planet, and those are linked there as well. As for VA4 I will no longer comment on VA4. -----Original Message----- From: Hakan [mailto:agents at meddatainc.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:50 PM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:44:20 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 What I really need is help to get wxOS2 really usable. I am a one man show and I'm spread way to thin to finish it, but it is close, if that helps. -----Original Message----- From: John Poltorak [mailto:jp at eyup.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:13 PM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 04:50:25PM -0500, Hakan wrote: > With that said, and if you have been a member of this group for a few > months, you would have seen, when we had that discussion a few months > ago, that I have been skeptical towards wxWindows as to its ability to > increase software development for OS/2. I am lukewarm towards > cross-platform environment and have yet to see any attempt at that > which makes me excited (cf. Open32). At that time I did ask for > examples of OS/2 programs, even a small one, which showed off > wxWindows. To the best of my recollection, we were never supplied with > one. I also have a recollection that someone else asked the very same > question over the past few days but again, no examples were offered. > > The latter, however, has nothing to do with the merits and shortcomings > of VAC++ 4. I think this thread has just about run its course and is starting to turn into slanging match for some reason, which is regretable... It seems a number of people are trying to build wxWindows programs but are having difficulties getting the environment set up correctly for one reason or another. Hopefully when they have succeeded, they will make life simpler for others who want to try out wxWindows. Personally, I'm glad someone is taking the time to extend this cross-platform environment to something as 'dead-end' as OS/2, and I am eager to see how it can help bring more programs to OS/2 as a result. Now, can we cease hostilities, please? -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:15:35 +1100 (EDT) From: "IanM" Subject: Top posting Hi Ken >Dave Webster wrote: >>Hmmm.... >And last but not least, I also dislike all those useless >full-quote-lines below postings. >Please only quote the relevant lines. This is pissing me off to, there is no need for 4 pages of previous posts before I get to the reply, delete the lot and just post the relevent bits, its not that hard, and if anyones memory is that bad, then I dont think they should be on this and many other computer/software related lists. I dont know about Mozilla but many email clients, its simply a matter of highlighting the text you want to reply to. Not said in anger ok, just stating a fact. Cheers IanM http://www.os2site.com/ Never let your morals get in the way of doing the right thing. **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:59:51 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Python version Whilst trying to install Mailman, I got the following error when running configure:- checking Python interpreter... + test ! -x c:/usr/bin/python.exe + PYTHON=c:/usr/bin/python.exe + echo configure:1304: result: c:/usr/bin/python.exe + >&5 + echo c:/usr/bin/python.exe + >&6 c:/usr/bin/python.exe + echo configure:1308: checking Python version + >&5 + echo checking Python version... \c + >&6 checking Python version... + cat + > conftest.py + << EOF + c:/usr/bin/python.exe conftest.py 'import site' failed; use -v for traceback Traceback (most recent call last): File "conftest.py", line 2, in ? import string ImportError: No module named string + cat conftest.out cat: conftest.out: No such file or directory + version= + rm -f conftest.out conftest.py + test -z + echo configure:1333: error: ***** c:/usr/bin/python.exe is too old (or broken) ***** Python 1.5.2 or newer is required + >&5 + echo configure: error: ***** c:/usr/bin/python.exe is too old (or broken) ***** Python 1.5.2 or newer is required + >&2 configure: error: ***** c:/usr/bin/python.exe is too old (or broken) ***** Python 1.5.2 or newer is required + exit 1 + exit 1 Can anyone suggest why this is failing or what I should check for? Running python -V shows:- Python 2.2.2 -- John **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:20:49 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Python version On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 07:59:51PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > Whilst trying to install Mailman, I got the following error when running > configure:- > cat: conftest.out: No such file or directory > + version= > + rm -f conftest.out conftest.py > + test -z > + echo configure:1333: error: > > ***** c:/usr/bin/python.exe is too old (or broken) > ***** Python 1.5.2 or newer is required > + >&5 > + echo configure: error: > > ***** c:/usr/bin/python.exe is too old (or broken) > ***** Python 1.5.2 or newer is required > + >&2 > configure: error: > > ***** c:/usr/bin/python.exe is too old (or broken) > ***** Python 1.5.2 or newer is required > + exit 1 > + exit 1 > > > Can anyone suggest why this is failing or what I should check for? > > Running python -V shows:- > Python 2.2.2 Oooopppppsssssss! Forget that. I pulled in an old version of CONFIG.SITE which redefined the PYTHON variables... Some progress at last. Who knows, I may even get Mailman working... -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:52:23 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Permissions problem When running configure for Mailman it stops with the following error:- checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes checking whether #! works in shell scripts... yes checking for --with-var-prefix... no checking for --with-username... mailman checking for mailman UID... 25 checking for --with-groupname... mailman checking for mailman GID... 1 checking permissions on c:/usr/local... configure: error: ***** Installation directory c:/usr/local is not configured properly! ***** Directory must be owned by group mailman: c:/usr/local ***** Set-gid bit must be set for directory: c:/usr/local I have created PASSWD and GROUP files with the relevant entries which appear to have been picked up correctly, but the permission check fails. What can I do about it? Maybe I just need to hack the configure script so that it passes... -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:04:58 CET From: Illya Vaes Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 ** Reply to note from "Hakan" Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:37:38 -0500 (EST) >Because >Because >Because >Because [Yet another full quote below the top posting, deleted] This is starting to look and sound a lot like an advocacy group, with you filling the role of the Microsoft "agent" (agents at meddatainc.com as your mail address is probably just a coincident) with you sudden insistence on irrelevant details, "desire" to use the latest and greatest "standard" and the continued stubborn insistence on using the Microsoft "standard" of top-posting and full quoting of irrelevant passages, despite several requests to the contrary. I guess Dave is a volunteer dedicating his time for open source software (a no-no for MS agents) on the wrong platform (ditto) who should obviously be harassed by "his target audience" (or people acting as if they are), so that he will drop it disillusioned and return to the fold, to the flock of Wintel sheep. If this is very wrong, please be advised that this impression is what _your_ actions give. If you don't want to give that impression, you might try another attitude (if it is, go away MS agent). -- Illya Vaes (illya at vaeshiep.demon.nl) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:13:17 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 04:50:25PM -0500, Hakan wrote: > With that said, and if you have been a member of this group for a few > months, you would have seen, when we had that discussion a few months > ago, that I have been skeptical towards wxWindows as to its ability to > increase software development for OS/2. I am lukewarm towards > cross-platform environment and have yet to see any attempt at that > which makes me excited (cf. Open32). At that time I did ask for > examples of OS/2 programs, even a small one, which showed off > wxWindows. To the best of my recollection, we were never supplied with > one. I also have a recollection that someone else asked the very same > question over the past few days but again, no examples were offered. > > The latter, however, has nothing to do with the merits and shortcomings > of VAC++ 4. I think this thread has just about run its course and is starting to turn into slanging match for some reason, which is regretable... It seems a number of people are trying to build wxWindows programs but are having difficulties getting the environment set up correctly for one reason or another. Hopefully when they have succeeded, they will make life simpler for others who want to try out wxWindows. Personally, I'm glad someone is taking the time to extend this cross-platform environment to something as 'dead-end' as OS/2, and I am eager to see how it can help bring more programs to OS/2 as a result. Now, can we cease hostilities, please? -- John **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:57:16 +1100 From: "VE" Subject: Re: MRTG On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:06:42 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >What is the most recent version of MRTG which will work on OS/2? version 2.8.8 ?