From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 04:42:50 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 389 ************************************************** Wednesday 04 December 2002 Number 389 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: configure - problems : Franz Bakan" 2 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 3 Re: MRTG : Voytek Eymont 4 Re: configure - problems : John Poltorak 5 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 6 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Hakan" 7 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 8 Help with Shell script : John Poltorak 9 Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Hakan" 10 Re: PS2PDF : Michael Zolk 11 Re: Help with Shell script : Steven Levine" 12 Set-gid bit in Mailman : Ted Sikora 13 Re: Set-gid bit in Mailman : Ted Sikora 14 Re: Installing autoconf : John Poltorak 15 Installing autoconf : Christian Hennecke" 16 Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Thomas Dickey 17 Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 : John Poltorak 18 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 19 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 20 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Dave Webster 21 Mailman getting close : Ted Sikora 22 Posting to the list - please read : John Poltorak 23 Re: Mailman getting close : Ted Sikora 24 Re: Set-gid bit in Mailman : John Poltorak 25 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Hakan" 26 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Hakan" 27 Re: Permissions problem : John Poltorak 28 Re: Help with Shell script : John Poltorak 29 Re: installpkg : Andreas Buening 30 Re: Installing autoconf : Andreas Buening 31 Re: Installing autoconf : John Poltorak 32 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Stefan Neis 33 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Stefan Neis 34 RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 : Stefan Neis **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:08:40 +0100 (CET) From: "Franz Bakan" Subject: Re: configure - problems On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:10:45 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> After sh configure has finished I now have 264 sh-thd-??????? files. >> Not a real problem, but does someone know how to turn >> this 'feature' off? >Personally, I would suggest this version as a standard:- >http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~ilya/software/os2/pdksh-5.2.14-bin-2.zip Bingo! the sh-thd-?????? files are gone now. Thanks, Franz **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:45:05 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Listen, jerk, wxOS2 is NOT a production level port. If you could read for comprehension you'd know that!!! wxWindows had three production level ports right now and the web site MAKES THAT CLEAR, Gtk, Win32, and MAC. How many times have I said on this list that I need help in finishing off the OS/2 port. It would be the BEST development platform for OS/2 cross platform development, IF it were finished. It is about 85% there but still needs work. If you could read, you would know that. I've never seen someone as thick headed as you on this list. Suggestion, go back to what you were doing, you add NO value to anything discussed here. -----Original Message----- From: Hakan [mailto:agents at meddatainc.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:55 PM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Dave, For heaven's sake -- I do not want compile the samples in the distribution to take an initial look at a small application using wxWindows! I have been to wxwindows.org, I have taken the tour of the examples and of course, there are no OS/2 examples. I have however learned that it has been around since 1992 (if I remember correctly). Since you are working on the port, why don't you give us a pointer to a compiled, ready-to-run OS/2 application (limited functionality is OK), perhaps one ot the sample applications in the distribution you are referring to?? I am less interested in how it runs on Linux or a Win platform if it is being presented as a solution to the dearth of new OS/2 applications. On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:42:55 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >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 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:06:41 From: Voytek Eymont Subject: Re: MRTG ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:32:42 +0000 > Wonder if the latest version (2.9.26b) would build ... what's new in it ? Voytek Eymont SBT Information Systems Pty Ltd http://www.sbt.net.au/links/ phone +61-2 9310-1144 fax +61-2 9310-1118 **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:42:38 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: configure - problems On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:08:40AM +0100, Franz Bakan wrote: > On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:10:45 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> After sh configure has finished I now have 264 sh-thd-??????? files. > >> Not a real problem, but does someone know how to turn > >> this 'feature' off? > > >Personally, I would suggest this version as a standard:- > >http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~ilya/software/os2/pdksh-5.2.14-bin-2.zip > > Bingo! > > the sh-thd-?????? files are gone now. That's good to hear. I think the sh.exe in that package should be the standard one for anyone putting together a Unix environment on OS/2. Very often build problems arise which result from the shell in use rather than anything else. This one eliminated most of the problems I encountered in the past when I tried it. > Thanks, > Franz -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:56:32 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Here's a lesson in Open Source toolkit development. We DO NOT distribute compiled binaries or executable applications with releases. Users get the source code and compile it themselves. That's how it works, that's how it works in wxWindows. You will NEVER get compiled sample executables with wxWindows because we cannot provide a multi MB executable for every combination of platform/compiler. You need to learn how most Open Source projects work, how they are distributed before making unrealistic requests from its developers. In DIRECT response to your question, YES, many of the samples compile and run under OS/2. HOWEVER, NO I will NOT compile and "show" anything to you, that is YOUR job. So either you are interested enough to obtain the snapshot or latest CVS update, compile the library, then compile and link one of the samples, or too lazy to ever look at anything in the Open Source world and pass on all of it. You want to see something actually run, do it yourself. That's how Open Source works. -----Original Message----- From: Hakan [mailto:agents at meddatainc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:21 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Taking a cue from you -- listen jerk, who talked about a production level port? Have you not been able to compile even a single one of the sample/test applications to show us? On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:45:05 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >Listen, jerk, wxOS2 is NOT a production level port. If you could read for >comprehension you'd know that!!! wxWindows had three production level ports >right now and the web site MAKES THAT CLEAR, Gtk, Win32, and MAC. How many >times have I said on this list that I need help in finishing off the OS/2 >port. It would be the BEST development platform for OS/2 cross platform >development, IF it were finished. It is about 85% there but still needs >work. If you could read, you would know that. I've never seen someone as >thick headed as you on this list. > >Suggestion, go back to what you were doing, you add NO value to anything >discussed here. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hakan [mailto:agents at meddatainc.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:55 PM >To: os2-unix at eyup.org >Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 > > >Dave, > >For heaven's sake -- I do not want compile the samples in the >distribution to take an initial look at a small application using >wxWindows! I have been to wxwindows.org, I have taken the tour of the >examples and of course, there are no OS/2 examples. I have however >learned that it has been around since 1992 (if I remember correctly). >Since you are working on the port, why don't you give us a pointer to a >compiled, ready-to-run OS/2 application (limited functionality is OK), >perhaps one ot the sample applications in the distribution you are >referring to?? I am less interested in how it runs on Linux or a Win >platform if it is being presented as a solution to the dearth of new >OS/2 applications. > >On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:42:55 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > >>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 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:20:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Hakan" Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Taking a cue from you -- listen jerk, who talked about a production level port? Have you not been able to compile even a single one of the sample/test applications to show us? On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:45:05 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >Listen, jerk, wxOS2 is NOT a production level port. If you could read for >comprehension you'd know that!!! wxWindows had three production level ports >right now and the web site MAKES THAT CLEAR, Gtk, Win32, and MAC. How many >times have I said on this list that I need help in finishing off the OS/2 >port. It would be the BEST development platform for OS/2 cross platform >development, IF it were finished. It is about 85% there but still needs >work. If you could read, you would know that. I've never seen someone as >thick headed as you on this list. > >Suggestion, go back to what you were doing, you add NO value to anything >discussed here. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hakan [mailto:agents at meddatainc.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:55 PM >To: os2-unix at eyup.org >Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 > > >Dave, > >For heaven's sake -- I do not want compile the samples in the >distribution to take an initial look at a small application using >wxWindows! I have been to wxwindows.org, I have taken the tour of the >examples and of course, there are no OS/2 examples. I have however >learned that it has been around since 1992 (if I remember correctly). >Since you are working on the port, why don't you give us a pointer to a >compiled, ready-to-run OS/2 application (limited functionality is OK), >perhaps one ot the sample applications in the distribution you are >referring to?? I am less interested in how it runs on Linux or a Win >platform if it is being presented as a solution to the dearth of new >OS/2 applications. > >On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:42:55 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > >>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 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:33:52 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Good riddance. -----Original Message----- From: Hakan [mailto:agents at meddatainc.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:58 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 Yes, as of now I am bowing out. On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:41:37 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:20:56AM -0500, Hakan wrote: >> Taking a cue from you -- listen jerk, > >> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:45:05 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >> >> >Listen, jerk, > > >Please! > > >Can you both adopt a more civil tone? > >There is nothing to be gained from name calling. > > > >-- >John > > > > **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:51:16 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Help with Shell script If anyone is up to speed on Shell scripts, can you have a look at this section:- ? echo "$as_me:$LINENO: checking permissions on $prefixcheck" >&5 echo $ECHO_N "checking permissions on $prefixcheck... $ECHO_C" >&6 cat > conftest.py < gid: problems.append("Directory must be owned by group mailman: " + prefix) if (mode & S_ISGID) <> S_ISGID: problems.append("Set-gid bit must be set for directory: " +prefix) perms = S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IROTH | S_IXOTH if (mode & perms) <> perms: problems.append("Permissions should be at least 02775: " + prefix) if not problems: msg = "okay\n" else: msg = '***** ' + string.join(problems, '\n***** ') + '\n' fp = open("conftest.out", "w") fp.write(msg) fp.close() EOF $PYTHON conftest.py status=`cat conftest.out` rm -f conftest.out conftest.py if test "$status" != "okay" then { { echo "$as_me:$LINENO: error: ***** Installation directory $prefixcheck is not configured properly! $status" >&5 echo "$as_me: error: ***** Installation directory $prefixcheck is not configured properly! $status" >&2;} { (exit 1); exit 1; }; } fi It appears to be related to directory permissions and that'set-gid' is not set correctly, which isn't surprising... What is the best way to change this code so that it doesn't exit? ie. is there any way to make it appear that set-gid is set? -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:58:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Hakan" Subject: Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 Yes, as of now I am bowing out. On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:41:37 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:20:56AM -0500, Hakan wrote: >> Taking a cue from you -- listen jerk, > >> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:45:05 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >> >> >Listen, jerk, > > >Please! > > >Can you both adopt a more civil tone? > >There is nothing to be gained from name calling. > > > >-- >John > > > > **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:35:21 +0100 From: Michael Zolk Subject: Re: PS2PDF On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:19:59AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > What is the recommended way of converting a postscript file to a PDF? I always use GSView + ghostscript (printer driver "pdfwrite"). Michael **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:45:40 -0800 From: "Steven Levine" Subject: Re: Help with Shell script In <20021205105116.Q88 at eyup.org>, on 12/05/02 at 10:51 AM, John Poltorak said: >It appears to be related to directory permissions and that'set-gid' is >not set correctly, which isn't surprising... >What is the best way to change this code so that it doesn't exit? ie. is >there any way to make it appear that set-gid is set? Is there a configuration parameter that specifies the target OS? If so, use it to bypass the S_GID check since it does not apply to OS/2. Steven -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Levine" MR2/ICE 2.35 #10183 Warp4/FP15/14.085_W4 www.scoug.com irc.webbnet.org #scoug (Wed 7pm PST) --------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:11:16 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Set-gid bit in Mailman John how do you get around the Set-gid bit in mailman? ** Set-gid bit must be set for directory: /home/mailman ** -- Ted tsikora at ntplx.net **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 14:14:29 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Re: Set-gid bit in Mailman John Poltorak wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:11:16PM -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: > > John how do you get around the Set-gid bit in mailman? > > > > ** Set-gid bit must be set for directory: /home/mailman ** > > I cheated :-)... > > and changed:- > > { (exit 1); exit 1; }; } > > to:- > > { (echo 1); echo 1; }; } > > in the configure script. > > > -- > > Ted > > tsikora at ntplx.net > > -- > John That's cool I'll try it. -- Ted **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:18:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Installing autoconf On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:20:15PM +0100, Christian Hennecke wrote: > I'm trying to install autoconf 2.53b release 2 with little success. > Running configure results in the following error message: > > chmod: configure.lineno: Permission denied > configure: error: cannot create configure.lineno; rerun with a POSIX > shell > > This is independent of the shells I tried (pdksh 5.2.14 release 2, > ash). Any ideas? Have you read README.OS2 ? > Christian Hennecke > -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:20:15 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Installing autoconf I'm trying to install autoconf 2.53b release 2 with little success. Running configure results in the following error message: chmod: configure.lineno: Permission denied configure: error: cannot create configure.lineno; rerun with a POSIX shell This is independent of the shells I tried (pdksh 5.2.14 release 2, ash). Any ideas? Christian Hennecke **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:22:43 -0500 From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:33:52AM -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > Good riddance. your turn. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:41:37 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:20:56AM -0500, Hakan wrote: > Taking a cue from you -- listen jerk, > On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:45:05 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > > >Listen, jerk, Please! Can you both adopt a more civil tone? There is nothing to be gained from name calling. -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:52:51 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 funny, my command line VA4 ran the same compiler as the IDE, codestore and all, and had ENORMOUS memory leaks. Maybe the 'C' compiler was 3.x but no the C++ one. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Neis [mailto:neis at cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:31 PM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Hakan wrote: > I know that the version 4 of the > compiler also comes with a command-line version of the compiler and > other tools which I *assume* is what is being used by the IDE itself > and thus should be as conformant as the IDE version. Sorry, I've been cut off of this part of my e-mail for some days, so I'm currently a bit behind ... As I didn't see any comment about that so far, I just wanted to add that for all I know (and it's all from reading advertising and news groups, not from my own experience), the IDE version and the command line version of VAC++ are _vastly_ different, the IDE version is VAC++ 4 with all its code store features and almost complete C++ standard compliance, while the command line version is version 3.something, not buying you a big advantage compared to VAC++ 3. Again, that's _not_ from my own experience, just from reading ... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:55:02 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 And that is too bad really. It'd be nice if OS/2 had a compiler with 100% compatible stl attached that used a traditional build environment. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Neis [mailto:neis at cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:31 PM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Hakan wrote: > I know that the version 4 of the > compiler also comes with a command-line version of the compiler and > other tools which I *assume* is what is being used by the IDE itself > and thus should be as conformant as the IDE version. Sorry, I've been cut off of this part of my e-mail for some days, so I'm currently a bit behind ... As I didn't see any comment about that so far, I just wanted to add that for all I know (and it's all from reading advertising and news groups, not from my own experience), the IDE version and the command line version of VAC++ are _vastly_ different, the IDE version is VAC++ 4 with all its code store features and almost complete C++ standard compliance, while the command line version is version 3.something, not buying you a big advantage compared to VAC++ 3. Again, that's _not_ from my own experience, just from reading ... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:59:12 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 I always wonder if have this stuff right so I post what I understand, like throwing it against the wall, and see what sticks. I'm running out of disk space on my dev machine now, so having to deal with TWO CVS trees and my own 5GB+ dev system is going to be dicey. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Neis [mailto:neis at cdc.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:37 PM To: 'os2-unix at eyup.org' Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > Are totally confused now??? I am..... It doesn't actually sound like it. ;-) At least, what I read from your posting is the same what I did read from the various postings on wx-dev... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:37:49 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Mailman getting close I ran in bash: autoconf then removed from configure: + prefix) if (mode & S_ISGID) <> S_ISGID: problems.append("Set-gid bit must be set for directory: " then: ./configure --with-python=e:/apps/python222/python.exe --with-username=root --with-groupname=root --with-mail-gid=root --with-cgi-gid=root --prefix=/mailman It configured and built without errors but: Paths are wrong: The scripts use #!/usr/bin/env python My env is in /unixos2/usr/bin so I had to change the script or run python newlist and running ./newlist gets: Traceback (most recent call last): File "./newlist", line 53, in ? from Mailman import mm_cfg ImportError: No module named Mailman I think if we do some path finagling it may work like putting python is a Unix structure ie; /usr and I move my unixos2root to / But then maybe not. -- Ted **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:42:16 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Posting to the list - please read Whilst checking through some msgs which have never made it to the list I have noticed that some members have posted msgs using addresses which differ to the ones under which they are subscribed. The list operates as a closed list which means you have to be a member to post, so if you post with an address which is slightly different, ie. including something like 'nospam' as part of your address it will not appear here. This is something you will need to watch if you use different mailboxes. I may forward some of the msgs to the list which did not get posted originally, so if you suddenly see something you wrote many months ago, you will know the reason for the delay. -- John **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:09:37 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Re: Mailman getting close Ted Sikora wrote: > > I ran in bash: > > autoconf > > then removed from configure: > > + prefix) > if (mode & S_ISGID) <> S_ISGID: > problems.append("Set-gid bit must be set for directory: " > > then: > ./configure --with-python=e:/apps/python222/python.exe > --with-username=root --with-groupname=root --with-mail-gid=root > --with-cgi-gid=root > --prefix=/mailman > > It configured and built without errors but: > > Paths are wrong: > > The scripts use > > #!/usr/bin/env python My env is in /unixos2/usr/bin > > so I had to change the script or run python newlist > > and running ./newlist gets: > > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "./newlist", line 53, in ? > from Mailman import mm_cfg > ImportError: No module named Mailman > > I think if we do some path finagling it may work like putting python is > a Unix structure ie; /usr and I move my unixos2root to / > > But then maybe not. > > -- Can I get a copy of that patch for configure in the previous post? -- Ted **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:34:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Set-gid bit in Mailman On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:11:16PM -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: > John how do you get around the Set-gid bit in mailman? > > ** Set-gid bit must be set for directory: /home/mailman ** I cheated :-)... and changed:- { (exit 1); exit 1; }; } to:- { (echo 1); echo 1; }; } in the configure script. > -- > Ted > tsikora at ntplx.net -- John **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:36:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Hakan" Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Stefan, Not having used gcc I have a few questions: * Do you know of a site where the different version of the gcc compiler are compared in respect to conformance with Standard C++ as well as in other respects? How does it compare to VAC++? * Does gcc use STLport? I understand that STLport falls short of conformance -- what is your opinion (if you have used it)? * Am I correct in assuming that I do not have to program to the EMX API provided I have no interested in porting my software to Unix? Thanks. Hakan know of On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:42:34 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Hakan wrote: > >> Watcom C++ is far behind and I don't know how gcc fares. > >If you're willing to use the gcc-3.0.3 beta that's available >for OS/2, C++ support is rather good even with respect to the >rather new features. Note however that a) gcc is meanwhile >officially at version 3.2.x which is _not_ binary compatible >with 3.0.x (and won't be on OS/2 either, if and when there's >an OS/2 version of it) and b) I'm personally still using >gcc-2.8.1 (aka emx-0.9d) which is not that bad either (essentially, >it's missing support for namespaces and fails to produce errors >for some incorrect code). > > Regards, > Stefan >-- >Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > > > **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:37:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Hakan" Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 Stefan, I need to take a look at the command-line version (version 3.65?) and try it out myself. So far I have three different opinions from three people... Hakan On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:30:54 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Hakan wrote: > >> I know that the version 4 of the >> compiler also comes with a command-line version of the compiler and >> other tools which I *assume* is what is being used by the IDE itself >> and thus should be as conformant as the IDE version. > >Sorry, I've been cut off of this part of my e-mail for some days, so >I'm currently a bit behind ... >As I didn't see any comment about that so far, I just wanted to add that >for all I know (and it's all from reading advertising and news groups, >not from my own experience), the IDE version and the command line version >of VAC++ are _vastly_ different, the IDE version is VAC++ 4 with all its >code store features and almost complete C++ standard compliance, while >the command line version is version 3.something, not buying you a big >advantage compared to VAC++ 3. Again, that's _not_ from my own experience, >just from reading ... > > Regards, > Stefan >-- >Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > > > **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:58:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Permissions problem On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:32:36PM +1000, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > 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 > > Unix security obsessions don't quite apply to OS/2, even with EMX... This is an area which LIBEMU is supposed to address, but in the meantime we have to come up with various kludges... > > Maybe I just need to hack the configure script so that it passes... > > Yes, see attached patch to the configure script for Mailman 2.0.13. The problem here is that the code isn't sufficiently generic. IMV it would be better to devise something into Autoconf so that a freshly built configure script would know how to cope with permissions on OS/2. I have no idea if such a feature would be feasible though... > Sadly, at the time I didn't get much further before running out of steam. This time I managed to get quite a long way eventually. Configure (after being hacked) ran to the end and created a Makefile, and I could actually run Make Install, although there were a couple of errors. When I tried using NEWLIST, I got:- [C:\usr\local\bin]python newlist Enter the name of the list: py-test Enter the email of the person running the list: jp at eyup.org Initial py-test password: Traceback (most recent call last): File "newlist", line 220, in ? main() File "newlist", line 169, in main mlist.Create(listname, owner_mail, pw) File "c:/usr/local/Mailman/MailList.py", line 782, in Create Utils.MakeDirTree(os.path.join(mm_cfg.LIST_DATA_DIR, name)) File "c:/usr/local/Mailman/Utils.py", line 265, in MakeDirTree os.mkdir(made_part, perms) OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/c:' Maybe there is some way to skip drive letters... I may try building the whole thing using a prefix of /usr/local instead of c:/usr/local and see if that makes any difference. My main problem is that I have no idea how Mailman works so I don't know if there is enough of it built to get up and running by configuring it manually. Anyway, I think I've made enough progress today to stick at it for a while longer... > -- > 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 -- John **= Email 28 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 20:08:58 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Help with Shell script On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:45:40AM -0800, Steven Levine wrote: > In <20021205105116.Q88 at eyup.org>, on 12/05/02 > at 10:51 AM, John Poltorak said: > > >It appears to be related to directory permissions and that'set-gid' is > >not set correctly, which isn't surprising... > > >What is the best way to change this code so that it doesn't exit? ie. is > >there any way to make it appear that set-gid is set? > > Is there a configuration parameter that specifies the target OS? If so, > use it to bypass the S_GID check since it does not apply to OS/2. I don't think Mailman makes any attempt to support any OS where S_GID is not an appropriate check. > Steven > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Steven Levine" MR2/ICE 2.35 #10183 Warp4/FP15/14.085_W4 > www.scoug.com irc.webbnet.org #scoug (Wed 7pm PST) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 29 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:03:43 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: installpkg Michael Zolk wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:08:25AM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > No, only /bin is in PATH. All essential binaries and scripts that > > are of "general interest" for the user like installpkg.cmd itself > > belong to /bin and /bin is in PATH. All essential binaries and scripts > > that are NOT of "general interest" for the user (but maybe for the > > admin) belong to /sbin (Currently, /sbin is empty) and /sbin is NOT > > in PATH. If you have some special installation scripts that are > > necessary to activate a certain package put them into /var/lib. > > If the same script is required by two or three packages put it > > into each of them (-> /var/lib/unixos2/scripts/package1-foo.cmd, > > /var/lib/unixos2/scripts/package2-foo.cmd). But if it's required > > by several packages it's better to put that script into /sbin. > > These "helper scripts" are not intended to be executed by the user, but > are run by installpkg. The FHS says: "/usr/lib includes object files, > libraries, and internal binaries that are not intended to be executed > directly by users or shell scripts.", so /usr/lib/unixos2 would be the > right place if installpkg were in /usr/bin. At installation time of a package we can only assume that there is /bin, /sbin, /lib and the stuff that has been installed into /var by the package itself. I'd really like to keep the file system clean and all distro specific stuff in /var/lib/unixos2. Also package specific configuration scripts are some kind of "data" files. ;-) > I don't know if /lib/unixos2 > is the correct location of scripts like mod.cmd, but I think I should put > them into /bin anyway to avoid having to add lots of directories to PATH. Helper scripts that are not used by the user shouldn't be in PATH. If they are important put them into /sbin, if they aren't important and only used by one single package put them somewhere into /var/lib/unixos2 and call them with their full path name. If those scripts are just for installpkg and if there are only two or three of them we could use /sbin or maybe /lib/unixos2. Btw, about how many scripts are we talking? > As far as I understand it, the /var hierarchy is only for variable data that > can change during the execution of a program. Yes, and /var/lib/unixos2 may only be changed by the UnixOS/2 administration utilities like installpkg. > > > [ install scripts that require additional packages ] > > > > I know that the Debian policy requires that all programs that are marked > > > 'Essential' must work properly even without configuration. > > > > We can require the same. However, I think at least postinstall > > scripts won't be a problem. > > Only if the execution of the postinstall scripts is deferred until all > of the essential packages are installed. Exactly. And I think should require this. Then we can support any kind of postinstall script whose interpreter is in /bin plus REXX. [snip] > > What happens if a package has two scripts (foo1, foo2) and foo1 > > runs foo2? > > This won't work at the moment since only the script that is specified in the > PKGINFO file is extracted from the zip file. This means it is only possible to have exactly one install script per package? I think, for more complicated packages we'll need the possibility of having more than one install script. One that determines whatever and calls the other script which work like "helper scripts". Would it be difficult to support something like DESC script1 calls script2 with some options SCRIPT POSTINSTALL script1 SCRIPT POSTINSTALL script2 #!/bin/sh # this is script1, call script2 with some options /var/lib/unixos2/install-script/package-script2.cmd --with-feature-x [snip] > > Btw. do we want to have another file extension for the package > > files instead of ".zip"? This would allow to use wps associations > > for that file extension. > > I don't know... Which extension, maybe "ux2"? For example. > > > > CONFFILE pathname [owner group mode] > > > What happens if the whole distro with dozens of config files is > > installed at the same time? Is there an option to overwrite all > > config files (-f option?) or to rename the old ones to *.backup? > > Pressing "y" or "n" several hundred times can become very annoying. ;-) > > No, not at the moment. The most elegant solution would probably be to check > if the configuration file has been modified by the user and only prompt > the user if this is the case. However, I don't know what's the best way > to implement this. As a (future) solution it could be possible to store the md5 sum of config files. If they haven't changed the files can be overwritten. However, I think it's more important to know what exactly the PKGINFO file will look like and how and where which files will be stored than to have a full featured bugfree installpkg. This would allow to create the first _final_ packages. Especially most of the core packages won't need the highly sophisticated stuff. Could you post the current state of the PKGINFO manpage, please? Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 30 ==========================** Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 21:04:39 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Installing autoconf Christian Hennecke wrote: > > I'm trying to install autoconf 2.53b release 2 with little success. > Running configure results in the following error message: > > chmod: configure.lineno: Permission denied > configure: error: cannot create configure.lineno; rerun with a POSIX > shell > > This is independent of the shells I tried (pdksh 5.2.14 release 2, > ash). Any ideas? What exactly did you do, what exactly is your configure output and which sed and which chmod do you use? Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 31 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:16:41 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Installing autoconf On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:04:39PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > Christian Hennecke wrote: > > > > I'm trying to install autoconf 2.53b release 2 with little success. > > Running configure results in the following error message: > > > > chmod: configure.lineno: Permission denied > > configure: error: cannot create configure.lineno; rerun with a POSIX > > shell > > > > This is independent of the shells I tried (pdksh 5.2.14 release 2, > > ash). Any ideas? > > What exactly did you do, what exactly is your configure output > and which sed and which chmod do you use? Is there any prospect of the OS/2 patches in 2.53bR2 being integrated into the mainstream version? > > 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 **= Email 32 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:30:54 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Hakan wrote: > I know that the version 4 of the > compiler also comes with a command-line version of the compiler and > other tools which I *assume* is what is being used by the IDE itself > and thus should be as conformant as the IDE version. Sorry, I've been cut off of this part of my e-mail for some days, so I'm currently a bit behind ... As I didn't see any comment about that so far, I just wanted to add that for all I know (and it's all from reading advertising and news groups, not from my own experience), the IDE version and the command line version of VAC++ are _vastly_ different, the IDE version is VAC++ 4 with all its code store features and almost complete C++ standard compliance, while the command line version is version 3.something, not buying you a big advantage compared to VAC++ 3. Again, that's _not_ from my own experience, just from reading ... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 33 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:36:52 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Dave Webster wrote: > Are totally confused now??? I am..... It doesn't actually sound like it. ;-) At least, what I read from your posting is the same what I did read from the various postings on wx-dev... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 34 ==========================** Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:42:34 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: RE: wxWindows-2.3.4 On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Hakan wrote: > Watcom C++ is far behind and I don't know how gcc fares. If you're willing to use the gcc-3.0.3 beta that's available for OS/2, C++ support is rather good even with respect to the rather new features. Note however that a) gcc is meanwhile officially at version 3.2.x which is _not_ binary compatible with 3.0.x (and won't be on OS/2 either, if and when there's an OS/2 version of it) and b) I'm personally still using gcc-2.8.1 (aka emx-0.9d) which is not that bad either (essentially, it's missing support for namespaces and fails to produce errors for some incorrect code). Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.