From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 05:00:49 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 86 ************************************************** Saturday 29 March 2003 Number 86 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Making PKGs : Andreas Buening 2 Re: Building Python : Andrew MacIntyre 3 Re: Building Python : Andrew MacIntyre 4 Re: Building Python : John Poltorak 5 Re: Building Python : Stefan Neis 6 LDAP : John Poltorak 7 BSD installations [was: Building Python] : Tobias Huerlimann" 8 Re: gawk 3.1.2 : Jeff Robinson 9 gawk 3.1.2 : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 01:28:01 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Making PKGs John Poltorak wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:41:44PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > > John Poltorak wrote: [snip] > > > AIUI installpkg is based on a PKGTOOL set of utils as provided by > > > Slackware for Software installation and management. > > > > I have no idea what you're talking about. The installpkg > > I have doesn't use any other tools (except unzip). > > I'm talking about the _principles_ behind software management, not the > current state of installpkg. installpkg is based on the Slackware program > in terms of functionality, although it isn't a port but a re-write in > REXX. If I interpret http://www.slackware.com/book/index.php?source=x4000.html correctly then the current installpkg has just the same name and basically the same intention like the slackware installpkg program. Are there any docs how it works internally? Btw. is anybody currently working on it? 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 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:45:50 +1000 (est) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: Building Python On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Dave and Natalie wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:55:49 +1000 (est), Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > > >> On my Debian partition it is installed \usr\lib eg > >> Directory of L:\usr\lib > > > >Debian is an exception. > > > >The vast majority, and Python's default, install in /usr/local/... > > So your saying that most Linux (& BSD?) distributations install Python > in /usr/local? I've got 3 different Linux dists here and they all have > Python installed in /usr/lib, at that /usr/local is basically empty on > a new install. Exception being Debian which has > Directory of L:\usr\local\lib > > 1-03-03 1:40a 0 . > 9-07-02 7:20p 0 .. > 1-03-03 1:40a 0 python1.5 > 7-28-02 6:55a 0 python2.1 > > Each of which contains an empty site-packages subdir. > > I always understood that /usr/local was for packages that did not come > with the dist. I have to say I've not used any recent Linux distro (the last I used was Debian), so my comments concerning Linux would appear out of date. In general, the Linux distros would appear to be taking the view that if its packaged by the distro it goes into /usr. The BSDs certainly don't - ports packages in *BSD aren't part of the base OS so go in /usr/local. Solaris had a similar approach, except packages went in /opt (though this is now more for commercial packages, OSS is now largely using /usr/local last time I looked). I personally find that the Linux distro approach sucks, because without delving into the package database you can't easily separate whats optional and what's not. -- 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 **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:11:56 +1000 (est) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: Building Python On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > I don't plan to support any of my work through the python configure > > script, but if you send me your makefile+pyconfig.h, I'll add build > > support for UnixOS2 as a target environment (ie "make UnixOS2"). There > > are some things that won't work if built with the standard configure > > script (most of the OS/2 specific support, including multithreading AFAIK). > > Is there any way that your stuff could be made to work through the normal > build process? ie by changes to configure.in or Makefile.in for instance... I'm sure its possible - its just not me that's going to do the work (other than perhaps applying patches to the Python CVS). {...} > > The optional extensions will end up being supported via a setup.py script > > in the os2emx directory (I haven't been able to use the standard one > > for my work because it assumes a genuine Unix platform), but the standard > > setup.py script may work for UnixOS2. > > Can you provide more details... When the platform supports dynamic loading, the standard Python build process defers building the extension modules until the Python interpreter is built. Make then calls Python with the setup.py script, which uses Python's DistUtils package (part of the standard library) to build the extension modules (which are just DLLs on OS/2). Unless you can use the DistUtils to install 3rd party extensions (such as NumPy), your Python installation is not really complete. Installing a DistUtils based extension is simply a matter of changing into the extension source directory and executing python setup.py install DistUtils supports command line options for controlling install locations. -- 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 **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 11:57:45 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building Python On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:52:47PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Dave and Natalie wrote: > > > >The BSDs certainly don't - ports packages in *BSD aren't part of the base > > >OS so go in /usr/local. Solaris had a similar approach, except packages > > >went in /opt (though this is now more for commercial packages, OSS is now > > >largely using /usr/local last time I looked). > > > > Don't know much about the BSDs but I think the next thing I install will > > be one. Any recommendations? > > FreeBSD is slightly easier to install if it's the first time you're > installing BSD. First thing I tried a couple of months ago was OpenBSD > which really required some hours of RTFM. (Luckily, I was installing it > as a Virtual PC guest system, so reading documentation whenever I didn't > know how to continue was easy. ;-) ) > > > With Solaris I'd guess that any OSS software that is installed didn't come > > from Sun so should go into /usr/local. > > Actually some delivers some smaller OSS utilities (e.g. gzip) which > consequently do _not_ go into /usr/local, but into /usr. > > So, IMHO, the question is how to define UnixOS/2. > Is it just a very _small_ collection of important utilities (say compiler+ > make+auto-tools+perl+GNU shell/file/text utilities+awk+bison/byacc+flex) > and everything else is an independent "port" (BSD point of view), so goes > to /usr/local or is it the one distribution which contains _everything, so > everything goes to /usr. IMV we should treat UnixOS/2 as a full OSS distro based around an OS/2 kernel. I've been attempting to put together this 'small collection of important utils' by developing the UnixOS/2 Build System which should provide a basis of building all UnixOS/2 apps in a unified, structured way and make it appear to be a real distro with recognisable standards rather than a mishmash of indepedent ports just thrown together. At the moment, UnixOS/2 is still being built up and I don't think we are yet in a position to provide BSD type ports. With UX2BS anyone can select their own preferred directory structure by amending '--prefix', but eventually, when we have built up a large collection of of apps we can review how it looks and maybe alter some things around and make decision about the correct directory structure for all apps. At that point we can start distributing packages (or Ports). In any case it isn't just a case of 'everything' going in /usr. We need to make sure that man pages and info files, as well as many other files are allocated correctly. Personally, I don't like all the Perl binaries, of which there are 25, going into /usr/bin, but that is simply a preference. For now, I think the main focus should be getting most of the common Unix apps updated and built. Once we know we can build them, we can decide on the best place to install them, and then provide discrete PKGs for installing them without the need for building them. > > Regards, > Stefan > -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:52:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Building Python On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Dave and Natalie wrote: > >The BSDs certainly don't - ports packages in *BSD aren't part of the base > >OS so go in /usr/local. Solaris had a similar approach, except packages > >went in /opt (though this is now more for commercial packages, OSS is now > >largely using /usr/local last time I looked). > > Don't know much about the BSDs but I think the next thing I install will > be one. Any recommendations? FreeBSD is slightly easier to install if it's the first time you're installing BSD. First thing I tried a couple of months ago was OpenBSD which really required some hours of RTFM. (Luckily, I was installing it as a Virtual PC guest system, so reading documentation whenever I didn't know how to continue was easy. ;-) ) > With Solaris I'd guess that any OSS software that is installed didn't come > from Sun so should go into /usr/local. Actually some delivers some smaller OSS utilities (e.g. gzip) which consequently do _not_ go into /usr/local, but into /usr. So, IMHO, the question is how to define UnixOS/2. Is it just a very _small_ collection of important utilities (say compiler+ make+auto-tools+perl+GNU shell/file/text utilities+awk+bison/byacc+flex) and everything else is an independent "port" (BSD point of view), so goes to /usr/local or is it the one distribution which contains _everything, so everything goes to /usr. Regards, Stefan **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:54:14 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: LDAP Does anyone know much about LDAP? AFAIK, there is an OpenLDAP project. Can this be ported to OS/2? -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:26:22 +0100 (MEZ) From: "Tobias Huerlimann" Subject: BSD installations [was: Building Python] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 12:52:47 +0200 (CEST), Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Dave and Natalie wrote: > > > Don't know much about the BSDs but I think the next thing I install will > > be one. Any recommendations? > > FreeBSD is slightly easier to install if it's the first time you're > installing BSD. First thing I tried a couple of months ago was OpenBSD > which really required some hours of RTFM. (Luckily, I was installing it > as a Virtual PC guest system, so reading documentation whenever I didn't > know how to continue was easy. ;-) ) I tend to disagree in that point: I think OpenBSD's install is easier and more straight-forward compared to FreeBSD's (don't have much experience with NetBSD). I have to admit that the fdisk/disklabel steps (the first two major parts of the OpenBSD install script) can be nasty if one's doing that for the first time. But once you have made beyond the disk setup there are only simple questions asked like "Which IP should be assigned to network interface card fxp0 (or type "dhcp" to have the IP assigned by an DHCP server)". OpenBSD's install script is similar to the xf86config program, one might say. Compared to that FreeBSD has a menu-based install program with many options that IMHO is a little bit confusing (but also easy to master compared to some of OS/2's setup nightmares ;-). And after the installation: OpenBSD has only relatively few files in /etc, which makes orientation easy, and its excellent FAQ covers virtually any configuration question that may arise for newbies (including packet filter/nat setup, ...). In the end anyone has to decide which BSD suits his needs best, of course, but I just wanted to say that I don't think OpenBSD's installation is that complicated. Bye, Tobias Huerlimann -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (OS/2) iD8DBQE+hyi9yM3Xd8YJ6q0RAotoAKCIDA3g+cXgh050CsXuJyNMO+azsQCgh4Vu /2TvVdf+uSD3WNCu3nqBET0= =EEAc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:37:05 -0600 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: gawk 3.1.2 Andreas Buening wrote: > Hello! > > gawk 3.1.2 is out: > > sources: > http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/gawk/gawk-3_1_2.zip > > binaries: > http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/gawk/gawk-3_1_2-bin.zip > > bootstrap (requires EMX only): > http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/gawk/gawk-3_1_2-bootstrap.zip > > Jeff, could you add gawk to the UnixOS/2 pages, please? > > > Bye, > Andreas > Will do, Andreas. Right now I've been rather quiet as I was off to Vancouver for a while, but now I'm back and trying to assemble a "content system" for the webpages so that individuals can keep the info updated themselves. (If everything works, that is). Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:43:38 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: gawk 3.1.2 Hello! gawk 3.1.2 is out: sources: http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/gawk/gawk-3_1_2.zip binaries: http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/gawk/gawk-3_1_2-bin.zip bootstrap (requires EMX only): http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/gawk/gawk-3_1_2-bootstrap.zip Jeff, could you add gawk to the UnixOS/2 pages, 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.