From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 04:44:07 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 403 ************************************************** Wednesday 18 December 2002 Number 403 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 RE: Any Open Office news? : Dave Webster 2 RE: Any Open Office news? : Dave Webster 3 Re: R : John Poltorak 4 RE: Any Open Office news? : Dave Webster 5 Re: Any Open Office news? : Ted Sikora 6 Re: R port? : John Poltorak 7 Re: Any Open Office news? : Ken Ames 8 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : John Poltorak 9 Re: Any Open Office news? : G Hudson 10 Coloured Syslog ? : John Poltorak 11 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) 12 Re: R : Christian Hennecke" 13 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : Stefan Neis 14 Any Open Office news? : John Poltorak 15 Re: Any Open Office news? : John Poltorak 16 Re: Any Open Office news? : John Poltorak 17 Re: Building RSYNC : John Poltorak 18 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : Andreas Buening 19 Re: R : Andreas Buening 20 Re: Ncurses ticdir : John Poltorak 21 RE: Any Open Office news? : Adrian Gschwend" 22 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : Stefan Neis 23 Re: Any Open Office news? : John Poltorak 24 Re: R : Christian Hennecke" 25 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : John Poltorak 26 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : John Poltorak 27 Re: Building RSYNC : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:55:35 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: Any Open Office news? What's the difference between Open Office and Star Office. I have Star Office on my OS/2 box. -----Original Message----- From: John Poltorak [mailto:jp at eyup.org] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:38 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Any Open Office news? I understand some people are working on an OS/2 port of Open Office. Just wondered if their was any news on that front... -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:27:16 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: Any Open Office news? I don't think Star/Open Office uses wxWindows, yet, although I think there is some serious consideration of them doing just that. If they do, it would make OS/2 support a near slam dunk. -----Original Message----- From: John Poltorak [mailto:jp at eyup.org] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:11 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: Re: Any Open Office news? On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:55:35AM -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > What's the difference between Open Office and Star Office. I have Star > Office on my OS/2 box. Presumably you are running Star Office v5.1a on OS/2... That was the last version developed. Subsequently SUN decided to make Star Office an Open Source project, although they offer a commercial version of it under the name of Star Office v6.0 but it is based on Open Office, though it does come with support and a maybe a few additional features. One thing I did wonder about was which GUI it used. If it was wxWindows, then your work ought to bring an OS/2 port closer... > -----Original Message----- > From: John Poltorak [mailto:jp at eyup.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:38 AM > To: os2-unix at eyup.org > Subject: Any Open Office news? > > > > I understand some people are working on an OS/2 port of Open Office. > > Just wondered if their was any news on that front... -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:30:26 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: R On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:13:04PM +0100, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > John, > > on Oct, 28th I answered a similar question from Peter Milne and cc'd > this (rather detailed) answer to this list. If it did not get lost you > should be able to find it. Hi Thomas, I had completely forgotten about it. Thanks for reminding me. You seemed not to be very optimistic about getting R-1.6.0 built, but now you appear to be happy with your port of R-1.6.1 to I guess you have made considerable progress. > I made some more progress since then and now have a running R-1.6.1 on > my OS/2 (eCS) machine here. If anybody is really interested in > statistical computing unde OS/2 then do not hesitate to ask further > questions. I saw someone on USENET (Michael Potthoff ) asking about it. It isn't something I have a great deal of interest in personally, although I am interested in what changes you needed to make to get it working on OS/2. I'd like to think that once we have established the correct tools and environment, building such apps on OS/2 should be a snap. > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > Anyone familiar with the R project? See:- > > > > http://www.r-project.org > > > > Would any of it build on OS/2? I don't suppose anyone has already ported > > it... > > -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:25:50 -0600 From: Dave Webster Subject: RE: Any Open Office news? Actually I think it is a one-off effort by some wxWindows contributors, not the Open Office group themselves. -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Gschwend [mailto:ktk at datacomm.ch] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 10:05 AM To: os2-unix at eyup.org Subject: RE: Any Open Office news? On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:27:16 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >I don't think Star/Open Office uses wxWindows, yet, although I think there >is some serious consideration of them doing just that. If they do, it would >make OS/2 support a near slam dunk. wow they really do think about that? As far as I know they used their own class library so far. It's somewhat hard for me to imagine they want to migrate that, wxWindows would need to be quite similar to make a port valuable or 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 5 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:26:16 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Re: Any Open Office news? John Poltorak wrote: > > I understand some people are working on an OS/2 port of Open Office. > > Just wondered if their was any news on that front... > It's listed on their porting page but no patches available yet. http://porting.openoffice.org/ I checked some news posting and openoffice.org says their is no project or developers for OS/2 yet. -- Ted Sikora tsikora at ntplx.net **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:35:48 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: R port? On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:23:18PM +0100, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: Thomas, I thought I would add a few comments to this post following your earlier referral to it... > I am not sure if I will be able to maintain R further (and never was, > that's why I did not publish anything, besides, for my 33kbit line R is > quite big). I tried to standardize on tools that are current and > actively maintained for R porting, but gcc, posix2, unixos2, (even Perl, > X11 and the legendary emuos2) are examples of software that seems to dry > out on OS/2 (only autoconf and make are clear counter examples). The > responsiveness or mere visibility of some maintainers is too small: So > gcc 3.0.3 has a strange habit of output filename creation, I ask a > question about this here and the answer is zilch. (See the "Roadmap" > thread on this list for another example) IMV the availability of Unix apps on OS/2 is greater now than it has ever been. As far Perl goes, v5.8.0 actually built straight out of the box and didn't even need an OS/2 diff applying. This is the sort of position we need to get to with as many apps as possible. There does not appear to be much going on with the Posix/2 project, but maybe it has provided as much as it needs to, and we need to try and incorporate into a standard UnixOS/2 environment. As for software that remains current, there are many examples, such as Apache, Python, GNAT, Pine, Squid, Ogg, OpenSSL, PHP, and many more. In addition we also have some brand new ports such as Zope and I'm hopeful we can get Mailman soon. Then there are all sorts of ports that very few people are aware of such as RSYNC and your R port. When these are all assembled, you see quite an impressive collection of apps, and too few people realise just how much there actually is. What we mostly need is a standard set of uptodate tools and standard environment and then, in due course, we ought to be able to have most of the apps that any Linux user has access to. Be optimistic about the future! > -- > Thomas Hoffmann Telephone: > 49-351-4598831 > thoffman at zappa.sax.de Dresden, > Germany -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:42:58 -0800 From: Ken Ames Subject: Re: Any Open Office news? there are 2, one of them is Brian Smith and that is listed somewhere on openoffice.org site but it is difficult to find. Ken John Poltorak wrote: >On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:26:16AM -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: > > >>John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >>>I understand some people are working on an OS/2 port of Open Office. >>> >>>Just wondered if their was any news on that front... >>> >>> >>> >>It's listed on their porting page but no patches available yet. >>http://porting.openoffice.org/ >> >>I checked some news posting and openoffice.org says their is no project >>or developers for OS/2 yet. >> >> > >I thought there were some OS/2 developers actively working on it. > > > > >>-- >>Ted Sikora >>tsikora at ntplx.net >> >> > > > > **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:53:51 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > What would be wrong with replacing my emx\include dir with Posix/2's > > libext\include for standard headers? > > There are two problems: Yes, I'm sure there are problems, but do you agree that in principle it would be a good idea that we should try and incorporate the Posix/2 headers into UnixOS/2 as a replacement for the EMX headers? That would immediately get rid of problems such as missing sysexits.h and the constant problems over strcasecmp and similar such errors frequently encountered. > 1. Using Posix/2 headers often results in dependencies on cExt.a, > i.e. just replacing the headers and not linking against the library > typically will not work. I guess all the EMX libs would need to be rebuilt using the Posix/2 headers, but I believe there is a Makefile available for doing this so it may be a straightforward task... > 2. I don't really know how complete the Posix/2 header are (e.g. there's > no os2.h as that won't be needed in compiling a unix application). > Over here I have Posix/2's include dir (when using Posix/2) in front > of emx include dir, but I do have the later as a backup for headers > not found under posix/2. So just replacing won't quite do, you would > have to carefully merge those directories together. I don't know how many EMX specific headers there are, but I don't think there are many, and we should be able to add them without too much dificulty. Of course, I'm no expert in these matters and would be interested in other people's views as to how difficult it would be to migrate to a new set of headers and libs. > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:45:48 -0500 From: G Hudson Subject: Re: Any Open Office news? Has there been any progress in run Star/OpenOffice with ODIN? **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:06:07 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Coloured Syslog ? What would be required to introduce some colour into the CON output of SYSLOGD? It would be nice to have different programs outputting in different colours but I've no idea how to achieve this. -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:09:54 -0600 From: mikus at bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:24:26 +0100 (CET) Stefan Neis wrote: > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > Why can't we just add a line to string.h and an entry point to > > emx*.dll and everything will be fine. > > Because it won't help. Look at how many people are still using emx-0.9c > (tough I have not the slightest idea for what reasons). Adding yet > another version of headers and DLLs is just going to make life _more_ > complicated. I have trouble understanding this point. If there are people who have not yet upgraded from emx-0.9c to emx-0.9d, why should these people be more likely to install an UO2_2003 (i.e., a new direction) instead of an emx-0.9g (perceived as a continuation of facilities) ? mikus (would legacy EMX applications be able to run with UO2_2003 ?) **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:41:46 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: R On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:30:26 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> I made some more progress since then and now have a running R-1.6.1 on >> my OS/2 (eCS) machine here. If anybody is really interested in >> statistical computing unde OS/2 then do not hesitate to ask further >> questions. > >I saw someone on USENET (Michael Potthoff ) >asking about it. Count me in. I would also be *very* much interested in having GRASS running on OS/2. >It isn't something I have a great deal of interest in personally, although >I am interested in what changes you needed to make to get it working on >OS/2. I'd like to think that once we have established the correct tools >and environment, building such apps on OS/2 should be a snap. I tried to build it myself. First configure didn't recognize the host. I ran autoconf. After that, configure went better, but stopped: [snip] checking whether to build static libraries... no creating libtool checking whether makeinfo version is at least 4... yes checking for netscape... G:/NETZ/NETSCAPE/PROGRAM/netscape.exe checking for gcc... (cached) gcc checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... (cached) yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... (cached) yes checking for gcc option to accept ANSI C... (cached) none needed checking whether gcc needs -traditional... no checking how to run the C preprocessor... gcc -E checking for g77... g77 checking whether we are using the GNU Fortran 77 compiler... yes checking whether g77 accepts -g... yes checking for g++... g++ checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... yes checking whether g++ accepts -g... yes checking how to run the C++ preprocessor... g++ -E checking for main... no checking for main in -lm... yes checking for sin... yes checking for sin in -lm... no checking for main... (cached) no checking for main in -lncurses... ./configure[11387]: syntax error: `(' unexpected Christian Hennecke **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:12:13 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > i.e. just replacing the headers and not linking against the library > > typically will not work. > > I guess all the EMX libs would need to be rebuilt using the Posix/2 > headers, No. You can't change the headers and expect the libraries to still build. For rebuilding the EMX libraries, you would still need the original EMX headers. cExt.a and it's headers add a couple of functions and override/extend others, but it is not a complete replacement. > Of course, I'm no expert in these matters and would be interested in other > people's views as to how difficult it would be to migrate to a new set of > headers and libs. I _suppose_ it's a major pain if you do it... If there's any hope for libemu magically appearing over the next year, I'd suggest to not go through that kind of trouble twice... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 14:38:17 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Any Open Office news? I understand some people are working on an OS/2 port of Open Office. Just wondered if their was any news on that front... -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:11:28 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Any Open Office news? On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 08:55:35AM -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > What's the difference between Open Office and Star Office. I have Star > Office on my OS/2 box. Presumably you are running Star Office v5.1a on OS/2... That was the last version developed. Subsequently SUN decided to make Star Office an Open Source project, although they offer a commercial version of it under the name of Star Office v6.0 but it is based on Open Office, though it does come with support and a maybe a few additional features. One thing I did wonder about was which GUI it used. If it was wxWindows, then your work ought to bring an OS/2 port closer... > -----Original Message----- > From: John Poltorak [mailto:jp at eyup.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:38 AM > To: os2-unix at eyup.org > Subject: Any Open Office news? > > > > I understand some people are working on an OS/2 port of Open Office. > > Just wondered if their was any news on that front... -- John **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:21:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Any Open Office news? On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:26:16AM -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > I understand some people are working on an OS/2 port of Open Office. > > > > Just wondered if their was any news on that front... > > > > > It's listed on their porting page but no patches available yet. > http://porting.openoffice.org/ > > I checked some news posting and openoffice.org says their is no project > or developers for OS/2 yet. I thought there were some OS/2 developers actively working on it. > -- > Ted Sikora > tsikora at ntplx.net -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:29:08 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building RSYNC On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:26:11PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > either use "... -o rsync.exe ..." instead of "... -o rsync ..." (No idea, > > > though, how to get that into the Makefile at the right place, ideally > > > configure should figure that out by itself) > > (snipp) > > > I thought Autoconf might have worked out which *FLAGS were correct in an > > OS/2 environment... > > Yes, in theory it should know that OS/2 builds executables with > ".exe" as extension, but apparently the Makefile (or rather Makefile.in) > makes no use of that knowledge and tries to build plain > "rsync" nonetheless. Sounds like a bug/missing feature in either rync's > Makefile.in or even in its configure.in. :-( This sounds like a job for Professor Buening :-)... > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:20:10 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes John Poltorak wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:19:31PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > What would be wrong with replacing my emx\include dir with Posix/2's > > > libext\include for standard headers? > > > > There are two problems: > > Yes, I'm sure there are problems, but do you agree that in principle it > would be a good idea that we should try and incorporate the Posix/2 > headers into UnixOS/2 as a replacement for the EMX headers? I think it would be the _much_ better solution to _update_ the EMX headers. They got old and are not even compliant to the current C standard anymore. Are there any known objections by EM why the headers shouldn't be updated? > That would immediately get rid of problems such as missing sysexits.h and > the constant problems over strcasecmp and similar such errors frequently > encountered. I'm getting sick of this strcasecmp() and other trivial stuff. Why can't er just add a line to string.h and an entry point to emx*.dll and everything will be fine. However, for additional headers like sysexits.h I see no problem to add them to the libunixos2 stuff but I don't like the idea of having several versions of standard headers floating around. [snip] Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:20:22 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: R Christian Hennecke wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:30:26 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: [snip] > >It isn't something I have a great deal of interest in personally, although > >I am interested in what changes you needed to make to get it working on > >OS/2. I'd like to think that once we have established the correct tools > >and environment, building such apps on OS/2 should be a snap. > > I tried to build it myself. First configure didn't recognize the host. > I ran autoconf. After that, configure went better, but stopped: > > [snip] > checking whether to build static libraries... no > creating libtool > checking whether makeinfo version is at least 4... yes > checking for netscape... G:/NETZ/NETSCAPE/PROGRAM/netscape.exe ??? Ouch. ;-) [snip] > checking for main... (cached) no > checking for main in -lncurses... ./configure[11387]: syntax error: `(' > unexpected Which autoconf did you use? If you send me the code around line 11387 I _might_ be able to see what's wrong. 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 20 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:46:19 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Ncurses ticdir On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 07:02:26PM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 06:47:08AM -0500, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > > > Having just built Ncurses using prefix=/usr/local2, I see that > > > > > > ticdir=u:/usr/share/terminfo > > > > > > u: is the current drive, but I don't see anywhere that ticdir is set, so I > > > guess there is a default. > > > > > > In this case boththe tabset and terminfo directories are empty. Here are > > > the errors I get:- > > > > I see at least one problem in the (generated) run_tic.sh script. > > It's using sed with ':' as a delimiter to translate the $TABSET value, > > which probably is making it fail when $TABSET contains a ':'. > > I'll check on that this evening and see about sending you a short > > diff to repair it. (There are also some cases where it uses ' at ' > > as a delimiter, which should work, but I would rather make them > > consistently '%'). > > I think the problem is only in one file - here's a suggested patch: > > --- /usr/build/ncurses/ncurses-5.3-20021012-os2/misc/run_tic.in 2001-10-13 20:44:33.000000000 -0400 > +++ run_tic.in 2002-12-18 18:55:35.000000000 -0500 > at at -81,7 +81,7 at at Many thanks for that. The patch itself works fine, but I had a couple of problems applying it. Firstly, I needed to change the first two lines to get patch to recognise the files involved in the patch. I used:- --- ncurses-5.3/misc/misc/run_tic.in +++ ncurses-5.3-new/misc/misc/run_tic.in Maybe fiddling with '-p' would have done the trick... The second problem was due to the files being read-only. I didn't realise this until trying to update the file. Is there any simple way to chmod the file in question? Or is there an option to tar which will modify file attributes? Maybe the problem doesn't arise if start from a modified tarball. Will it be available from your ftp site? One further thing I noticed from my build log, and have no idea of its significance is this:- 38 entries written to /usr/local/share/terminfo ** built new c:/usr/local/share/terminfo cp: ../share/terminfo: No such file or directory installing std installing stdcrt installing vt100 installing vt300 make[1]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/ncurses-5.3/misc' cd c++ && make DESTDIR="" install This is almost at the end of the install, and am not aware of any problems caused. > -- > Thomas E. Dickey > http://invisible-island.net > ftp://invisible-island.net -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:05:28 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: RE: Any Open Office news? On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:27:16 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: >I don't think Star/Open Office uses wxWindows, yet, although I think there >is some serious consideration of them doing just that. If they do, it would >make OS/2 support a near slam dunk. wow they really do think about that? As far as I know they used their own class library so far. It's somewhat hard for me to imagine they want to migrate that, wxWindows would need to be quite similar to make a port valuable or 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 22 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:24:26 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Andreas Buening wrote: > I think it would be the _much_ better solution to _update_ the EMX > headers. What do you mean by "updating"? > I'm getting sick of this strcasecmp() and other trivial stuff. That's all only happening because EMX was modelled along the lines of the other then existing OS/2 compilers, so it has stricmp just as any other DOS, OS/2 or Windos compiler instead of strcasecmp and IIRC there is even _some_ standard which claims this to be the "correct" name for that function. But there are more important issues than those microscopic extensions. A nicely integrated pthreads library for example would be very helpful. > Why can't er just add a line to string.h and an entry point to > emx*.dll and everything will be fine. Because it won't help. Look at how many people are still using emx-0.9c (tough I have not the slightest idea for what reasons). Adding yet another version of headers and DLLs is just going to make life _more_ complicated. > However, for additional headers like sysexits.h I see no problem > to add them to the libunixos2 stuff but I don't like the idea > of having several versions of standard headers floating around. I've come to appreciate the flexibility that those two sets of header files/libraries do offer: - If I need something that works on OS/2&DOS or without DLL's or if using something aimed at VAC++ originally, I use standard EMX. - If I need an extended UNIX support, I add Posix/2 stuff and usually I can live with the resulting restrictions(won't work on DOS and requires EMX dll's). Regards, Stefan **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:25:29 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Any Open Office news? On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:25:50AM -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > Actually I think it is a one-off effort by some wxWindows contributors, not > the Open Office group themselves. Any idea how big a task this is? I'm wondering whether any OS/2 developers would be better spending their time porting Open Office to wxWindows than getting it straight to OS/2 using SUN's class libraries. Using wxWindows is clearly a more open path and IMV it makes more sense to be familiar with wxWindows as this can be of more benefit in the future to OS/2 users than getting involved with libraries which are not used for anything else. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Gschwend [mailto:ktk at datacomm.ch] > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 10:05 AM > To: os2-unix at eyup.org > Subject: RE: Any Open Office news? > > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:27:16 -0600, Dave Webster wrote: > > >I don't think Star/Open Office uses wxWindows, yet, although I think there > >is some serious consideration of them doing just that. If they do, it > would > >make OS/2 support a near slam dunk. > > wow they really do think about that? As far as I know they used their > own class library so far. It's somewhat hard for me to imagine they > want to migrate that, wxWindows would need to be quite similar to make > a port valuable or not? > > cu > > Adrian > > > -- > Adrian Gschwend > at netlabs.org > > ktk [a t] netlabs.org > ------- > Free Software for OS/2 and eCS > http://www.netlabs.org > -- John **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:09:17 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: R On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:20:22 +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: >> checking for main... (cached) no >> checking for main in -lncurses... ./configure[11387]: syntax error: `(' >> unexpected > >Which autoconf did you use? If you send me the code around >line 11387 I _might_ be able to see what's wrong. The latest and greatest I could find at OS2Ports.com: 2.53b release 2 Here is the code starting with line 11385: rm -f conftest.$ac_objext conftest$ac_exeext conftest.$ac_ext if test "$ac_cv_search_opendir" = no; then for ac_lib in dir; do LIBS="-l$ac_lib $ac_func_search_save_LIBS" cat >conftest.$ac_ext <<_ACEOF #line $LINENO "configure" #include "confdefs.h" Christian Hennecke **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:54:17 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 04:20:10PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > I think it would be the _much_ better solution to _update_ the EMX > headers. They got old and are not even compliant to the current > C standard anymore. Are there any known objections by EM why the > headers shouldn't be updated? > > > > That would immediately get rid of problems such as missing sysexits.h and > > the constant problems over strcasecmp and similar such errors frequently > > encountered. > > I'm getting sick of this strcasecmp() and other trivial stuff. Posix/2 headers get round this problem. > Why can't er just add a line to string.h and an entry point to > emx*.dll and everything will be fine. > > However, for additional headers like sysexits.h I see no problem > to add them to the libunixos2 stuff but I don't like the idea > of having several versions of standard headers floating around. Really libunixos2 adds yet another new dimension. Can you look at Posix/2 and see how much of what has already been done is common to libunixos2? It's available here:- http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/misc/p2alpha3.zip although there may be a later release around... > [snip] > > > Bye, > Andreas > > -- > One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, > One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them > In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. -- John **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:07:57 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 01:12:13PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > i.e. just replacing the headers and not linking against the library > > > typically will not work. > > > > I guess all the EMX libs would need to be rebuilt using the Posix/2 > > headers, > > No. You can't change the headers and expect the libraries to still build. > For rebuilding the EMX libraries, you would still need the original > EMX headers. cExt.a and it's headers add a couple of functions and > override/extend others, but it is not a complete replacement. I guess any unique EMX headers and libs could be added to Posix/2... > > Of course, I'm no expert in these matters and would be interested in other > > people's views as to how difficult it would be to migrate to a new set of > > headers and libs. > > I _suppose_ it's a major pain if you do it... > If there's any hope for libemu magically appearing over the next year, I'd > suggest to not go through that kind of trouble twice... Being able to use the Posix/2 headers would save a lot of needless problems, and I would like to try and take advantage of them if possible. Maybe we could use both, Posix/2 in /usr/include and EMX in /emx/include or somesuch with the search path including both. What I'm not sure about is where the libs are in Posix/2. Do you have compiled set of libs anywhere? I would like to try this arrangement out. > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. -- John **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 22:17:58 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building RSYNC On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:26:11PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > > I thought Autoconf might have worked out which *FLAGS were correct in an > > OS/2 environment... > > Yes, in theory it should know that OS/2 builds executables with > ".exe" as extension, but apparently the Makefile (or rather Makefile.in) > makes no use of that knowledge and tries to build plain > "rsync" nonetheless. Sounds like a bug/missing feature in either rync's > Makefile.in or even in its configure.in. :-( Could the solution be as simple as adding:- EXEEXT = at EXEEXT at OBJEXT = at OBJEXT at to Makefile.in? > > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John