From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 04:44:17 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 406 ************************************************** Saturday 21 December 2002 Number 406 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : Stefan Neis 2 Re: R : Stefan Neis 3 GCC ? : Stefan Neis 4 Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes : Christian Hennecke" 5 compiling environment : Adrian Gschwend" 6 Re: Autoconf for beginners : Adrian Gschwend" 7 Re: compiling environment : Stefan Neis 8 Mail : Ted Sikora 9 ***Mail Problems*** : John Poltorak 10 Re: Mail : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:18:48 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Andreas Buening wrote: > In which way does a new function in emx 0.9x introduce a backward > incompatibility to emx 0.9(x-1)? All programs that do not need this > new functionality work with both versions and all programs that > need this functionality work only with the new version, and if there > is no new version (as it is the case now) they don't work at all. I heard about that theory at emx 0.9d release time and remember plenty of complaints that old programs suddenly stopped working when the new DLLs where installed. Although I never was able to see such a problem myself on my own computer, I learned that asking people to upgrade is a real problem. :-( > wide character support (Standard C since 1995/96), i.e. > the wc*.h header files, OK, good point. Rather convincing, indeed. > If you say "There may never be any new function > or data type or header file" then this is equivalent to "Nobody may > ever use the new C Standard for programming on OS/2". > With this philosophy there can be no progress, never. I just happen to be a fan of static libraries. I still don't see a need for putting all this into the emx dll's and release a new version. Just use Posix/2's cExt.a ... > The idea is that these new functions are put into emx directly > as an official new release. Afair that's what libemu is trying to provide when it's finished. Starting a second independent version of an updated libc won't improve things, IMHO. Regards, Stefan **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:27:26 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: R On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > The question remains: Was the first version syntactically wrong and > autoconf 2.13 just tolerated this > or is ac 2.53 buggy? If you ask autoconf maintainer's, they will always tell you that the newest version is perfect and that any failure is due to bugs in the older version which didn't reject code which _now_ is considered as incorrect. :-( > I remember to have read something about the eating > up of brackets during macro expansion but cannot find this doc right > now. Then I could decide where to report the problem: to the creators of > the above code or to the autoconf maintainers. Creators of the code. If they don't want to change it, it's up to them to try to convince autoconf maintainers of anything ... > But why does none of the unix guys hav a problem with this? Probably because they a) don't run autoconf but use the generated configure. b) even if they run autoconf, they use a version which works for that script. > PS. The R program uses modules that are loaded during runtime. This > stuff works way different under Unix and OS/2. Some dl.a normally does quite a good job at "emulating" dlopen/dlsym/dlclose. Even though the internals are very different, it often works just nicely. However compiling the DLL's can be quite a problem ... Regards, Stefan **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:31:37 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: GCC ? Hi, I'm getting the impression that after a rather lengthy series of not very widely accepted/used gcc versions, the Linux world is settling down on using gcc-3.2 for serious work. Any chance to see a port to OS/2 any time "soon"? Or anybody knowing that my impression is wrong? Regards, Stefan **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 02:28:02 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: Posix/2 v. EMX includes On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:18:48 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >> In which way does a new function in emx 0.9x introduce a backward >> incompatibility to emx 0.9(x-1)? All programs that do not need this >> new functionality work with both versions and all programs that >> need this functionality work only with the new version, and if there >> is no new version (as it is the case now) they don't work at all. > >I heard about that theory at emx 0.9d release time and remember plenty of >complaints that old programs suddenly stopped working when the new DLLs >where installed. Although I never was able to see such a problem myself >on my own computer, I learned that asking people to upgrade is a real >problem. :-( I remember the discussion, too. I think there was one of many programs I tried that didn't work as before. IIRC this was related to the TCP/IP functionality. Christian Hennecke **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:57:37 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: compiling environment Hi all, I finished my diploma work one week ago, together with a friend I wrote an application on Debian GNU/Linux systems for distributed computing. Now it's time to try to compile it on OS/2 so I need to set up the build environment here. On my Linux box I use the following stuff: - autoconf 2.56 - automake 1.4 p6 - libtool 1.4.3 - make 3.8 - autoheader 2.56 (is that part of autoconf?) - GCC 2.95 I saw that John compiled make 3.8 on OS/2, is there already a UnixOS2 package available for that one? I couldn't find it on os2ports.com so far. GCC is available but I don't know if this is FHS compilant? I want to avoid to have a mixture in my structure so I prefer clean ports. Autoconf 2.57 seems to be available but I missed the part where to get it :-) Automake exists as p5, could that lead to problems? Libtools seems to be rather outdated (1.2), is there a new version somewhere? cu & thanks for the hints Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:05:52 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Autoconf for beginners On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:56:38 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: Hi John, >I've always been a big fan of the wonders of autoconf+friends without >having any real understanding of how it worked, so I thought I would try >to build a configure script via autoconf from scratch for building >regex.lib. I'm catching up with reading emails :-))) Very long delay I know... I just want to point you to a book about the topic, it's available in print but also for free: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/index.html cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:18:50 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: compiling environment On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > - libtool 1.4.3 Used to be a real problem on any platform but Linux, but I hear that there have been big improvements. Still, making it work on OS/2 is probably still an "interesting" task... :-( Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:34:46 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Mail Is it working yet? -- Ted Sikora tsikora at ntplx.net **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:47:24 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: ***Mail Problems*** Can anyone who hasn't posted anything in the last couple of days reply to this? The email address for the os2-unix mailing list is being changed to:- os2-unix at manninghammills.org until I get my domain back. If you have tried to post anything in the last couple of days, and it hasn't shown up, that is because it has become misdirected. Apologies for any inconvenience. -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 23:24:20 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Mail On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 06:34:46PM -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: > Is it working yet? I don't expect anyone to look at it until tomorrow and it might not get sorted out until after Christmas. Does anyone have a contact email address for Network Solutions? > -- > Ted Sikora > tsikora at ntplx.net -- John