From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:08:40 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 152 ************************************************** Thursday 17 July 2003 Number 152 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Adrian Gschwend" 2 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Adrian Gschwend" 3 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Stefan Neis **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:17:26 +0200 (CDT) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:49:59 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: >Sure. I meant it's not necessary to create a doc subdirectory >before Adrian goes on holiday. It would make sense to support >manpages than just .inf files so we would need a fundamental >change in the current doc directory (there seems to be just >source for .inf files). What is the optimal input file format >if we want manpages, .inf and .html files? for man & html I would vote for DocBook (www.docbook.org), the problem is that there is no INF conversion possible so far. But thought about that several times already, maybe we should try to provide that in the future (needs some XSLT hacking) cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:19:30 +0200 (CDT) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:26:37 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: >If I remember correctly I've installed the sources that are part >of gcc 2.8.1 from hobbes (gccsrc*.zip but I'm not sure) plus some >update from the emx fixes (the last one, i.e. 0.9f?). Just an update regarding CVS, I didn't create it because of the following reasons: Knut St. Osmundsen (aka bird) told me that it would be very stupid to create a CVS at the moment, Innotek does have a CVS for gcc and a new libc. Innotek did a lot of work, for instance starting updating header to FreeBSD 5.1 level. Their "testcase" is Mozilla (which is not an easy one I would say). Achim Hasenmüller is not in the office until the end of next week so Knut can't give a lot of comments about release & CVS access for "us". But I would suggest we should wait for him, he can give some detailled comments about CVS read & write access and release plans. Like this we avoid creating two different projects with basically the same goal and this would be very stupid for the whole OS/2 scene IMHO. I hope you agree that we should wait another week until we get some comments by Innotek. I will CC this mail to Achim as well, I hope he finds the time to give some more light into the thingy next week. cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:35:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Adrian Gschwend wrote: > libc. Innotek did a lot of work, for instance starting updating header > to FreeBSD 5.1 level. I don't quite understand how "FreeBSD 5.1 level" and some earlier statements (implying that the runtime wouldn't have Unix support to the extent of EMX in my reading) can possibly be both correct at the same time, but this sounds really good... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.