From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 04:47:58 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 7 ************************************************** Tuesday 07 January 2003 Number 7 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: [Fwd: failure notice]was: R : Thomas Hoffmann 2 Re: [Fwd: failure notice]was: R : Thomas Hoffmann 3 Re: PASSWD handling : nickk" 4 Re: PASSWD handling : nickk" 5 Re: PASSWD handling : nickk" 6 Re: PASSWD handling : nickk" 7 Re: PASSWD handling : John Poltorak 8 Re: PASSWD handling : John Poltorak 9 Re: PASSWD handling : John Poltorak 10 Re: PASSWD handling : John Poltorak 11 Open Group - basic utilities specification : John Poltorak 12 Open Group - basic utilities specification : John Poltorak 13 ctags : John Poltorak 14 ctags : John Poltorak 15 Re: gcc and Mozilla : Henry Sobotka 16 Re: gcc and Mozilla : Henry Sobotka 17 Re: gcc and Mozilla : Henry Sobotka 18 Re: gcc and Mozilla : Henry Sobotka 19 Re: ctags : John Poltorak 20 Re: ctags : John Poltorak 21 Re: gcc and Mozilla : Henry Sobotka 22 Re: gcc and Mozilla : Henry Sobotka 23 Open Watcom C/C++ 1.0 beta : John Poltorak 24 Open Watcom C/C++ 1.0 beta : John Poltorak 25 Re: Perl build hang : John Poltorak 26 Re: Perl build hang : John Poltorak 27 Re: PASSWD handling : nickk" 28 Re: PASSWD handling : nickk" 29 Re: PASSWD handling : Steve Wendt 30 Re: PASSWD handling : email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:41:17 +0100 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: Re: [Fwd: failure notice]was: R By accident they used 2.53 and I used 2.53b. Not much of a version difference, i would say ... As I said: It would be best if I could point to a piece of their code and to a paragraph in the current autoconf docs and show a syntax error in the input. Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > > > But using which autoconf version? wxWindows for example is still using > 2.13 even though most (All?) of the "bugs" for autoconf-2.5x seem to be > fixed, meanwhile. Or if they are using 2.56 and you are using something > slightly older, that might also explain your problem. In short: Make > sure you're using the exact same version on OS/2 that others are using > on Unix... :-( > **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:41:17 +0100 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: Re: [Fwd: failure notice]was: R By accident they used 2.53 and I used 2.53b. Not much of a version difference, i would say ... As I said: It would be best if I could point to a piece of their code and to a paragraph in the current autoconf docs and show a syntax error in the input. Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > > > But using which autoconf version? wxWindows for example is still using > 2.13 even though most (All?) of the "bugs" for autoconf-2.5x seem to be > fixed, meanwhile. Or if they are using 2.56 and you are using something > slightly older, that might also explain your problem. In short: Make > sure you're using the exact same version on OS/2 that others are using > on Unix... :-( > **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:41:38 +0300 (MSK) From: "nickk" Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:38:23 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> >As I understand it, this will restrict usage to people running W4 FP13+. >> >Is that the case? >> >Personally I would prefer not to force such a restriction on anyone. >> There is no strict dependence between Security/2 able to run and OS/2 fixpack level. Some os/2 kernels have bugs >> in SES KPI, some works ok. The actual OS/2 revisions suitable for Security/2 can be determined only after testing. >> Currently, i know only that ACP1 kernel 14.062 has bugs. Except kernel there is not other modules that may broke >> Security/2 work. >> >> Also, i do not think that providing a broad compatibility for all os/2 systems is wise decision, thus ibm closes >> support for old revisions. We already have mostly 16 bit os/2 kernel as the result of such approach. > >I just don't like the idea of forcing people to upgrade systems which are >running perfectly well - it has the smell of upgraditis and reminds me too >much of the Microsoft way. Dont worry, be happy ;) For getting Security/2 to work you can replace only kernel, if it will be neccessary. There is no need to install full fixpacks, just spend some time to choose a proper kernel within your OS/2 version scope. >Would it be passible to use SES if detected and something else if not? All is possible, but not all is reasonable ;) **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:41:38 +0300 (MSK) From: "nickk" Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:38:23 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> >As I understand it, this will restrict usage to people running W4 FP13+. >> >Is that the case? >> >Personally I would prefer not to force such a restriction on anyone. >> There is no strict dependence between Security/2 able to run and OS/2 fixpack level. Some os/2 kernels have bugs >> in SES KPI, some works ok. The actual OS/2 revisions suitable for Security/2 can be determined only after testing. >> Currently, i know only that ACP1 kernel 14.062 has bugs. Except kernel there is not other modules that may broke >> Security/2 work. >> >> Also, i do not think that providing a broad compatibility for all os/2 systems is wise decision, thus ibm closes >> support for old revisions. We already have mostly 16 bit os/2 kernel as the result of such approach. > >I just don't like the idea of forcing people to upgrade systems which are >running perfectly well - it has the smell of upgraditis and reminds me too >much of the Microsoft way. Dont worry, be happy ;) For getting Security/2 to work you can replace only kernel, if it will be neccessary. There is no need to install full fixpacks, just spend some time to choose a proper kernel within your OS/2 version scope. >Would it be passible to use SES if detected and something else if not? All is possible, but not all is reasonable ;) **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:43:40 +0300 (MSK) From: "nickk" Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:38:23 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >Personally, I have no idea which version of OS/2 most people use, although >I suspect the majority on this list are reasonably up to date. I remember >upgrading to FP13 was a major struggle on one of my systems and discovered >it simply wouldn't run, so now I have to remember that certain programs >simply won't work on that machine - this came as something of a culture >shock as every version of OS/2 I had ever tried would run on every machine >I had. I suspect the majority of OS/2 users are not running a version at >the required level to use SES and I wouldn't want to alienate them. I want people to test Security/2 on wide range of os/2 revisions, on different kernels. Then we will have a compatibility list and the life will become more happy ;) **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:43:40 +0300 (MSK) From: "nickk" Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:38:23 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >Personally, I have no idea which version of OS/2 most people use, although >I suspect the majority on this list are reasonably up to date. I remember >upgrading to FP13 was a major struggle on one of my systems and discovered >it simply wouldn't run, so now I have to remember that certain programs >simply won't work on that machine - this came as something of a culture >shock as every version of OS/2 I had ever tried would run on every machine >I had. I suspect the majority of OS/2 users are not running a version at >the required level to use SES and I wouldn't want to alienate them. I want people to test Security/2 on wide range of os/2 revisions, on different kernels. Then we will have a compatibility list and the life will become more happy ;) **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:04:41 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:53:04PM +0200, Sergey Yevtushenko wrote: > I suspect you met problems with some old software built using Borland > tools. If so - just repack binaries using lxlite and this will fix > problem with FP#13+. No the problem was far more serious than that. Changes to the kernel in FP13 force this particular computer to reboot as soon as OS2KRNL loads. I've never got to the bottom of the problem, but it's obviously hardware related, and likely to be due to the CPU used which is 486SLC3 AFAICR. > > Would it be passible to use SES if detected and something else if not? > > I think this can be hidden inside pwd() library. That would be an excellent solution, if someone was able to come up with it. > Thanks. -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:04:41 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:53:04PM +0200, Sergey Yevtushenko wrote: > I suspect you met problems with some old software built using Borland > tools. If so - just repack binaries using lxlite and this will fix > problem with FP#13+. No the problem was far more serious than that. Changes to the kernel in FP13 force this particular computer to reboot as soon as OS2KRNL loads. I've never got to the bottom of the problem, but it's obviously hardware related, and likely to be due to the CPU used which is 486SLC3 AFAICR. > > Would it be passible to use SES if detected and something else if not? > > I think this can be hidden inside pwd() library. That would be an excellent solution, if someone was able to come up with it. > Thanks. -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:16:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 01:53:22PM -0600, ERACC Lists wrote: > John Poltorak did rant: > > [...] > +Personally, I have no idea which version of OS/2 most people use, > +although I suspect the majority on this list are reasonably up to date. > [...] > > We are still running Warp 4 FP 12. Plan to move to eCS once cash flow > gets better. :-) FP13 is free and is a major upgrade for Warp 4. > Gene > -- > +=========================-=>Unix & OS/2<=-=========================+ > # Owner and C.E.O. - ERA Computer Consulting - Jackson, TN USA # > # eCS,OS/2,UnixWare,OpenServer & Linux Business Computing Solutions # > # Please visit our www pages at http://eracc.hypermart.net/ # > +===================================================================+ > We run IBM OS/2 v.4.00, Revision 9.036 > Sysinfo: 40 Processes, 155 Threads, uptime is 7d 0h 11m 24s 275ms > -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:16:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 01:53:22PM -0600, ERACC Lists wrote: > John Poltorak did rant: > > [...] > +Personally, I have no idea which version of OS/2 most people use, > +although I suspect the majority on this list are reasonably up to date. > [...] > > We are still running Warp 4 FP 12. Plan to move to eCS once cash flow > gets better. :-) FP13 is free and is a major upgrade for Warp 4. > Gene > -- > +=========================-=>Unix & OS/2<=-=========================+ > # Owner and C.E.O. - ERA Computer Consulting - Jackson, TN USA # > # eCS,OS/2,UnixWare,OpenServer & Linux Business Computing Solutions # > # Please visit our www pages at http://eracc.hypermart.net/ # > +===================================================================+ > We run IBM OS/2 v.4.00, Revision 9.036 > Sysinfo: 40 Processes, 155 Threads, uptime is 7d 0h 11m 24s 275ms > -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:08:28 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Open Group - basic utilities specification --7yxGdOSRpzzOwSz3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm attaching a file in html format which is a browsable list of the utilities defined by the Open Group's Single UNIX Specification, Version 3. You can load up the file in a browser and use it as index to the actual list - it's pretty handy. I think we have most of these in some archive of other, although I'm not sure that we can ever duplicate the full list... -- John --7yxGdOSRpzzOwSz3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="utilities.html" Utilities

Utilities

--7yxGdOSRpzzOwSz3-- **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:08:28 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Open Group - basic utilities specification --7yxGdOSRpzzOwSz3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I'm attaching a file in html format which is a browsable list of the utilities defined by the Open Group's Single UNIX Specification, Version 3. You can load up the file in a browser and use it as index to the actual list - it's pretty handy. I think we have most of these in some archive of other, although I'm not sure that we can ever duplicate the full list... -- John --7yxGdOSRpzzOwSz3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="utilities.html" Utilities

Utilities

--7yxGdOSRpzzOwSz3-- **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:40:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: ctags Where is the definitive source for CTAGS? I have seen such a program for OS/2, although I don't remember where it came from. Is anyone familiar with it? -- John **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:40:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: ctags Where is the definitive source for CTAGS? I have seen such a program for OS/2, although I don't remember where it came from. Is anyone familiar with it? -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:55:52 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc and Mozilla Ted Sikora wrote: > > Somebody said remove Set C_Include_Path= Does this seem right? Yes, gcc 3.x knows how to find emx/include without that setting, and unsetting it ensures that gcc checks the new ones in lib/gcc-lib/[...]/include first. h~ **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:55:52 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc and Mozilla Ted Sikora wrote: > > Somebody said remove Set C_Include_Path= Does this seem right? Yes, gcc 3.x knows how to find emx/include without that setting, and unsetting it ensures that gcc checks the new ones in lib/gcc-lib/[...]/include first. h~ **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:59:47 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc and Mozilla Stefan Neis wrote: > > If possible, using -fno-rtti and -fno-exceptions (for all > files) as well as not building debug versions of some specific files helps > on _all_ platforms to avoid those (not so) rare problems, that's just how > things are. :-( That's been the default setting for all gcc builds of Mozilla since the conversion from C to C++. h~ **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 14:59:47 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc and Mozilla Stefan Neis wrote: > > If possible, using -fno-rtti and -fno-exceptions (for all > files) as well as not building debug versions of some specific files helps > on _all_ platforms to avoid those (not so) rare problems, that's just how > things are. :-( That's been the default setting for all gcc builds of Mozilla since the conversion from C to C++. h~ **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:12:24 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ctags On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:40:18PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > Where is the definitive source for CTAGS? It appears to be on Sourceforge:- http://ctags.sourceorge.net There even appears to be an uptodate binary available for OS/2 which is listed as ec54os2.zip but unfortunately it doesn't exist ... Looks like OS/2 isn't supported any more :-(... -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:12:24 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ctags On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:40:18PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > Where is the definitive source for CTAGS? It appears to be on Sourceforge:- http://ctags.sourceorge.net There even appears to be an uptodate binary available for OS/2 which is listed as ec54os2.zip but unfortunately it doesn't exist ... Looks like OS/2 isn't supported any more :-(... -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:13:33 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc and Mozilla John Poltorak wrote: > > Why do you use BASH? It's been bash since the src code was released, and makes things easier when you have one set of makefiles for multiple platforms. As for the other tools, Mozilla tends towards lowest-common-denominator support and checks for minimum versions during configure. The versions specified for OS/2 builds are more a means of making things easier, i.e. they're known to work, than an absolute requirement (unless they're the minimum). They reduce the chances of an attempted build failing, and it's easier for someone else to look at the problem if we're all on the same page. h~ **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:13:33 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc and Mozilla John Poltorak wrote: > > Why do you use BASH? It's been bash since the src code was released, and makes things easier when you have one set of makefiles for multiple platforms. As for the other tools, Mozilla tends towards lowest-common-denominator support and checks for minimum versions during configure. The versions specified for OS/2 builds are more a means of making things easier, i.e. they're known to work, than an absolute requirement (unless they're the minimum). They reduce the chances of an attempted build failing, and it's easier for someone else to look at the problem if we're all on the same page. h~ **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:26:47 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Open Watcom C/C++ 1.0 beta Open Watcom C/C++ 1.0 beta is now available here:- ftp://ftp.openwatcom.org/watcom/openwatcom/1.0_beta/open-watcom-c-os2-1.0.exe I guess this must be our long term replacement for VAC++. Wonder if it can be used for building anything like Perl... -- John **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:26:47 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Open Watcom C/C++ 1.0 beta Open Watcom C/C++ 1.0 beta is now available here:- ftp://ftp.openwatcom.org/watcom/openwatcom/1.0_beta/open-watcom-c-os2-1.0.exe I guess this must be our long term replacement for VAC++. Wonder if it can be used for building anything like Perl... -- John **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:36:34 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Perl build hang On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 10:09:25PM +0000, Lyn St George wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:15:03 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >If anything, it's probably a TCP/IP issue. I have been testing DHCP and > >messing with SETUP.CMD which may have had some knock on effect on Perl, > >especially when running a socket test. > > > > Is your local loopback still working? > I remember having a problem with perl, which turned out to be caused > by an alteration I had made in config.sys, even though, if it hadn't > been for the problem, I would have sworn black and blue that my > config.sys had not changed at all !! It looks as though it is related to some hostname resolution problems. I had RESOLV pointing at a misconfigured DNS entry for my old domain. > - > Cheers > Lyn St George > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > + http://www.zolotek.net .. eCommerce hosting, consulting > + http://www.os2docs.org .. some 'How To' stuff ... > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:36:34 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Perl build hang On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 10:09:25PM +0000, Lyn St George wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:15:03 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >If anything, it's probably a TCP/IP issue. I have been testing DHCP and > >messing with SETUP.CMD which may have had some knock on effect on Perl, > >especially when running a socket test. > > > > Is your local loopback still working? > I remember having a problem with perl, which turned out to be caused > by an alteration I had made in config.sys, even though, if it hadn't > been for the problem, I would have sworn black and blue that my > config.sys had not changed at all !! It looks as though it is related to some hostname resolution problems. I had RESOLV pointing at a misconfigured DNS entry for my old domain. > - > Cheers > Lyn St George > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > + http://www.zolotek.net .. eCommerce hosting, consulting > + http://www.os2docs.org .. some 'How To' stuff ... > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:55:37 +0300 (MSK) From: "nickk" Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:04:41 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> > Would it be passible to use SES if detected and something else if not? >> >> I think this can be hidden inside pwd() library. > >That would be an excellent solution, if someone was able to come up with >it. > >> Thanks. what you like to have from libpwd what the s/2 is not enstalled - some stub or complete passwd file handling ? **= Email 28 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:55:37 +0300 (MSK) From: "nickk" Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:04:41 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> > Would it be passible to use SES if detected and something else if not? >> >> I think this can be hidden inside pwd() library. > >That would be an excellent solution, if someone was able to come up with >it. > >> Thanks. what you like to have from libpwd what the s/2 is not enstalled - some stub or complete passwd file handling ? **= Email 29 ==========================** Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:55:53 -0800 (PST) From: Steve Wendt Subject: Re: PASSWD handling On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > We are still running Warp 4 FP 12. Plan to move to eCS once cash flow > > gets better. :-) > > FP13 is free and is a major upgrade for Warp 4. But not recommended... use FP15 (or FP16 if you can get it). **= Email 30 ==========================** Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 19:41:56 -0600 From: email at eracc.hypermart.net (ERACC Lists) Subject: Re: PASSWD handling In: <20030108091611.L83 at manninghammills.org> On: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:16:11 +0000 Screaming: Re: PASSWD handling John Poltorak did rant: +On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 01:53:22PM -0600, ERACC Lists wrote: > John +Poltorak did rant: +> +> [...] +> +Personally, I have no idea which version of OS/2 most people use, +> +although I suspect the majority on this list are reasonably up to date. +> [...] +> +> We are still running Warp 4 FP 12. Plan to move to eCS once cash flow +> gets better. :-) +FP13 is free and is a major upgrade for Warp 4. Yup. And it breaks old software we rely on that is no longer being updated by the original developer, is not open source and is still under a restrictive license. Therefore we are waiting until we can get cash to upgrade to eCS and replace the outdated software at the same time. :-) Gene -- +=========================-=>Unix & OS/2<=-=========================+ # Owner and C.E.O. - ERA Computer Consulting - Jackson, TN USA # # eCS,OS/2,UnixWare,OpenServer & Linux Business Computing Solutions # # Please visit our www pages at http://eracc.hypermart.net/ # +===================================================================+ We run IBM OS/2 v.4.00, Revision 9.036 Sysinfo: 36 Processes, 138 Threads, uptime is 0d 9h 57m 11s 497ms