From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:00:15 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 67 ************************************************** Saturday 08 March 2003 Number 67 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Libtool Status : Franz Bakan" 2 GSVIEW future : John Poltorak 3 Re: GSVIEW future : John Poltorak 4 Re: Libtool Status : Stefan Neis 5 Re: GSVIEW future : Stefan Neis 6 Re: GSVIEW future : Dave and Natalie" 7 Re: GSVIEW future : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" 8 man-db, the on-line manual database : IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.03" 9 Re: Libtool Status : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 01:00:01 +0100 (CET) From: "Franz Bakan" Subject: Re: Libtool Status On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:43:42 +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: >I've just uploaded a patched 1.4.3. It's temporarily available at >http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/libtool-1_4_3.zip >I hope I've added all that magic stuff I used for gettext. ;-) ... I tried to install and install-process worked as described in README.OS2 But there remain questions ;-) - I want to use Libtool in the build-process for SANE. - I want to compile a.out and not .omf format because I have fork() - configure from SANE creates a libtool (which does not work) So what shall I do? Replace ltmain.sh from SANE-package with the one from patched 1.4.3 and then configure SANE as normal? or configure SANE and then with default ltmain.sh and then replace the created libtool with the one from 1.4.3? Is it possible to 'install' 1.4.3 not using '-Zomf' ? Are there answers to my questions or do I have to experiment with all possibilities? Which approach would be the preferred one? Bye, Franz **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 14:02:31 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: GSVIEW future Given that GSVIEW's author won't be releasing an OS/2 version of 5.0, how can we hope to keep up to date, assuming that we can use the source code to build it on OS/2? Should we be looking at building it using wxWindows? -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:02:47 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: GSVIEW future On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:50:26PM +0100, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > > Given that GSVIEW's author won't be releasing an OS/2 version of 5.0, how > > can we hope to keep up to date, assuming that we can use the source code > > to build it on OS/2? > > > > Should we be looking at building it using wxWindows? > > First of all, we should be looking at finding someone with the knowledge, > enought spare time and enough interest in an up-to-date version of GsView, > to take a closer look at how we could go about a GsView 5.0 for OS/2. > > I suppose that just finding such a person will already be a problem. I was under the impression that GsView comes with source and a Makefile and is readily buildable on OS/2... Has anyone tried building it? > Personally, I would be very much satisfied with a current GTK+ for OS/2 > and a few bugfixes to HOB X11 (drawing/refreshing parts of a window seems > to be off by one pixel (only in vertical direction, though) quite > regularly). Compiling the Unix/Linux version of gsview then should be > quite easily possible... Is GTK+ uptodate on OS/2? I thought there was some discussion a while back about trying to persuade the author to develop for wxWindows so he would only need to maintain a single interface, but create output for a number of different target platforms from a single source... > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:34:41 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Libtool Status On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > Sorry? Which Unixes don't? > > AIX. At least I haven't been able to find a way to do this. Ah, I see. I always get to hear rumours about how ugly (i.e. different) it is, but never had an opportunity/need to form my own opinion about AIX. > Are you sure? Quite, yes. > Last time I tried this -lfoo caused the program/library > to use the hardcoded libfoo.so.x.y.z Well, yes and no. I.e. -lfoo is supposed to resolve to using libfoo.so.x.y.z so your binaries don't break if you update libfoo to libfoo.so.u.v.w and change the link (i.e. the binary will work as long as it can find the needed libfoo.so.x.y.z no matter what version libfoo.so points to at the time you start the program), but it shouldn't include a full or relative path to the library. > I really doubt. If you look e.g. at the libtool.m4 file there is a lot > of obscure sh code to deal with different systems and that's not just > due to cygwin or os2. I believe/hope most of that code is for detecting compiler/linker versions and supporting the "native" compiler (aka non-gcc). If one is using gcc -fPIC and -shared really seem to be all the options that are needed (and even -fPIC is not necessary on some platforms ...) - the magic is just moved to the job of compiling the compiler, though... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:50:26 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: GSVIEW future On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > Given that GSVIEW's author won't be releasing an OS/2 version of 5.0, how > can we hope to keep up to date, assuming that we can use the source code > to build it on OS/2? > > Should we be looking at building it using wxWindows? First of all, we should be looking at finding someone with the knowledge, enought spare time and enough interest in an up-to-date version of GsView, to take a closer look at how we could go about a GsView 5.0 for OS/2. I suppose that just finding such a person will already be a problem. Personally, I would be very much satisfied with a current GTK+ for OS/2 and a few bugfixes to HOB X11 (drawing/refreshing parts of a window seems to be off by one pixel (only in vertical direction, though) quite regularly). Compiling the Unix/Linux version of gsview then should be quite easily possible... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 18:13:24 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: GSVIEW future On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:02:47 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > >I was under the impression that GsView comes with source and a Makefile >and is readily buildable on OS/2... > >Has anyone tried building it? I've built 4.3 here. IIRC it went fairly easy though I did have to grab some DLLs from the binary dist. The nice thing about building it is you can get rid of the nag screen. Dave **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 18:15:32 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: GSVIEW future On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:50:26 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >I suppose that just finding such a person will already be a problem. >Personally, I would be very much satisfied with a current GTK+ for OS/2 >and a few bugfixes to HOB X11 (drawing/refreshing parts of a window seems >to be off by one pixel (only in vertical direction, though) quite >regularly). Compiling the Unix/Linux version of gsview then should be >quite easily possible... Better use Everblue :-) Sebastian **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:29:02 +0000 From: "IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.03" Subject: man-db, the on-line manual database Has anyone come across an alternative implemenation of man using man-db, the on-line manual database? You can get further details here:- http://www.nongnu.org/man-db/ I'm wondering whether it is worth looking into getting this working on OS/2... I don't think it is widely used on Unix and don't know how useful it is... -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:36:11 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Libtool Status Franz Bakan wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:43:42 +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > > >I've just uploaded a patched 1.4.3. It's temporarily available at > >http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/libtool-1_4_3.zip > >I hope I've added all that magic stuff I used for gettext. ;-) > ... > > I tried to install and install-process worked as described in README.OS2 > > But there remain questions ;-) It's libtool, what did you expect? ;-) > - I want to use Libtool in the build-process for SANE. > - I want to compile a.out and not .omf format because I have fork() > - configure from SANE creates a libtool (which does not work) > > So what shall I do? First, I'm not a libtool expert but I'll try to answer your questions. > Replace ltmain.sh from SANE-package with the one from patched 1.4.3 > and then configure SANE as normal? Run "libtoolize --copy" (and maybe --force). This should do the job for you (though you can replace ltmain.sh by hand). > or configure SANE and then with default ltmain.sh and then replace > the created libtool with the one from 1.4.3? > > Is it possible to 'install' 1.4.3 not using '-Zomf' ? [snip] How you install libtool on your system doesn't matter. The libltdl doesn't work and you'd better never use your /usr/bin/libtool. You'd better copy the libtool.m4 file into your source directory, otherwise you can run into trouble. You need the following lines in configure.ac (in _that_ order): AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL AC_PROG_LIBTOOL Assuming that you want to compile a library called "foo" you have to add the following line to the according Makefile.am: libfoo_la_LDFLAGS = -no-undefined Then the following should happen: configure should create a local ./libtool script. You can define any reasonable *FLAGS (but never use -Zdll) and either --disable-static or --disable-shared. The combined libtool/auto* stuff should detect automagically which kind of output files you need (e.g. from the object file extension) and produce the according {static foo.a} | {import foo.a, foo.dll} | {static foo.lib} | {import foo.lib, foo.dll} files. I hope this will work. However, I can't test every *FLAGS combination so I can't guarantee for anything. ;-) 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.