From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:11:36 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 193 ************************************************** Saturday 13 September 2003 Number 193 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Re: [Ux2-announce] Re: Mailman tweaking : Alex Newman" 2 gdk-pixbuf (was Re: Mailman tweaking) : Alex Newman" 3 GCC 3.2.2 Beta 2 / Innotek LIBC : Knut St. Osmundsen" 4 Pine 4.58 is here : Aelfred se leof 5 Re: gdk-pixbuf (was Re: Mailman tweaking) : Dave and Natalie" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:06:28 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: Re: [Ux2-announce] Re: Mailman tweaking On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:54:56 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > Alex Newman wrote: > > [snip] > > > Which is more than I can say for my autotools. > > I've just gone through most a 15K line configure file (gdk-pixbuf > > 0.22.0), > > line by line, to see where the problems are. Auto???? (or libtool) is > > splicing the odd (and totally wrong!) comma or semicolon (sometimes > > two) after 'fi' closures, which is really throwing everything out of > > whack. > > > > I've almost finished, only another 1500-odd lines to go ;). > > Editing configure is usually not a good idea. Maybe it's just some > missing quote in one of the input files. > > > > Bah humbug :(. > > > > Andreas: maybe you might be interested in having a look at the > > autotools-generated configure (pre-editing)? Please let me know if you > > are. > > Which package are you exactly talking about? Gdk-pixbuf, v. 0.22.0. I actually wanted to try an earlier version in case of incompatabilities. Untouched (by me), configure failed about half way through, complaining of an "unexpected new line". Having just found source for 0.17.0 and 0.18.0, I will give them a try and see what happens. > > autoconf is 2.57, automake is 1.722 (might this be the problem?), > > built/installed from Andreas' source on unixos2 ftp site (somewhere ;). Alex. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:39:42 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: gdk-pixbuf (was Re: Mailman tweaking) On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:26:54 -0800, Dave and Natalie wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 09:06:28 +1000 (EST), Alex Newman wrote: > > >> Which package are you exactly talking about? > > > >Gdk-pixbuf, v. 0.22.0. I actually wanted to try an earlier version in > >case of incompatabilities. > > > >Untouched (by me), configure failed about half way through, complaining > >of an "unexpected new line". Having just found source for 0.17.0 and > >0.18.0, I will give them a try and see what happens. > > I have gdk-pixbuf-0.11.0 here. Configure (untouched by me) runs fine. Unluckily my gdk install seems to be messed up. Had a couple of unresolved symbols, now get about 3000 lines of errors related to gdk and gtk > Dave > ps will look at v 0.22.0 I've just tried configure on 0.17.0, without using automake, etc. Configure runs fine with CFlAGS/LDFLAGS to build executables (and --host=i386-pc-os2-emx), but not with LDFLAGS to build libs. Running make on the working configure compiles the object files, but chokes on the link step (because it thinks it's building an exec, when it should be building a lib?). configure chokes if I leave off --host=, for either set of LDFLAGS. I obviously don't know/understand what I'm doing, so I've retreated to emxdev.doc, etc., to work out where I'm stuffing up with LDFLAGS. Btw, re unresolved symbols, is your gcc_weaksyms= env var (still) set? Cheers, Alex. **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:27:13 +0200 From: "Knut St. Osmundsen" Subject: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 2 / Innotek LIBC I'm glad to announce the first public beta of GCC 3.2.2 with the Innotek LIBC. The binaries and sources are available from: ftp://ftp.innotek.de/pub/gccos2/3.2.2-beta2/ There is a bunch of .zips there, you'll most likely only need the 'core' and 'doc' ones. If you thinking about contributing to LIBC you better download the 'src-emx' zip too. We've created a mailing list on netlabs for GCC and LIBC, details can be found in MailingLists.os2 (in the 'doc' zip). Problems with GCC and LIBC, i.e. things which doesn't work correctly in one or another way, can be reported to the 'Gnu Compiler Suite' product in the netlabs xTracker: http://xtracker.netlabs.org/index.php?project=15 (Please read the release and installation notes carefully before submitting problem reports. Searching in xTracker is also a good thing.) Feature requests, ideas, contributions and such should not be posted as defects in xTracker, but on the mailing list for discussion. Contributions are very much appreciated! I want to point out that this is work in progress. For instance the updating of os2emx.h is started, but DosOpenL and friends isn't added yet. The same goes for the task of updating all standard headers to FreeBSD 5.1 level, some are updated others are not. Best Regards, knut PS. I'm sorry if this mail appears twice, I first posting it 24 hours ago and as it hasn't shown up yet I'm reposting it. **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:22:55 +1000 (AET) From: Aelfred se leof Subject: Pine 4.58 is here Hi all. OS/2 Pine 4.58 will shortly be available from the usual places. This a bug-fix release from the University of Washington, which corrects a security problem in Pine 4.56 (Pine 4.57 was not released). There have been no OS/2-specific changes. See http://www.zeta.org.au/~nps/software/pine/en/index.html for details. Nicholas S. |\ Group: Shire of Agaricus, Lochac | Cynicism is the last refuge of the |\ E-mail: nps at zeta.org.au | idealist. | WWW: http://www.zeta.org.au/~nps | | /sca/en/index.html | **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:48:30 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: gdk-pixbuf (was Re: Mailman tweaking) On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 12:39:42 +1000 (EST), Alex Newman wrote: >> Dave >> ps will look at v 0.22.0 > Well I built v 0.22.0 by running sh configure --prefix=/XFree86, make Only problem was in building pixbuf-demo.exe. For some reason make wasn't linking in the graphic libs so I just hacked the makefile. (had the same problem with 0.11.0). pixbuf-demo runs fine so it seems to work. Nice demo. >I've just tried configure on 0.17.0, without using automake, etc. >Configure runs fine with CFlAGS/LDFLAGS to build executables (and >--host=i386-pc-os2-emx), but not with LDFLAGS to build libs. Running >make on the working configure compiles the object files, but chokes on >the link step (because it thinks it's building an exec, when it should >be building a lib?). configure chokes if I leave off --host=, for >either set of LDFLAGS. > I use CFLAGS='-D__EMX__ -DOS2 -Zmtd -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Zexe -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -Dstrncasecmp=strnicmp -Dstrcasecmp=stricmp' LDFLAGS='-Zmtd -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -O2 -s -Zsysv-signals -Zstack 512' >I obviously don't know/understand what I'm doing, so I've retreated to >emxdev.doc, etc., to work out where I'm stuffing up with LDFLAGS. > >Btw, re unresolved symbols, is your gcc_weaksyms=file> env var (still) set? The unresolved symols with 0.11.0 was a lack of -lgdk in the makefiles. I'm using pgcc 2.95.3 as it seems more forgiving then 3.21 to bad code. I'll try rebuilding with 3.21 later. Dave ps I'm still using my own build enviroment as I can't maintain a ftp connection to os2ports.com