Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:04:03 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 279 ************************************************** Wednesday 31 December 2003 Number 279 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 cannot find command processor in the path : John Poltorak 2 Re: cannot find command processor in the path : John Poltorak 3 openssl headers : John Poltorak 4 Re: Pine problem : John Poltorak 5 Re: Pine problem : Henry Sobotka 6 Re: openssl headers : Henry Sobotka 7 lib vs. dll (was: Re: Pine problem) : Adrian Gschwend" 8 Re: openssl headers : Andrew MacIntyre 9 Re: openssl headers : Andrew MacIntyre 10 Re: New ZLIB : Dave and Natalie" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:59:44 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: cannot find command processor in the path Why do I get an error msg about the command processor not being found in the path when it clearly is? -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:18:02 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: cannot find command processor in the path On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:59:44PM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > Why do I get an error msg about the command processor not being found in > the path when it clearly is? This appears to be problem related to Make.... It does not occur when using an old version of Make (v3.76.1) but it's a definite no-go with v3.79.1. Should I be using some additional envar such as MAKESHELL or somesuch to get round the problem? -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:59:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: openssl headers I have a C_INCLUDE_PATH defined as /usr/include and within that directory all the openssl headers are placed in the openssl directory. If I want to build a program which requires the openssl headers, do I need to update the INCLUDE variable or is there some other way to tell it where to look? -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:13:55 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Pine problem On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:39:19PM +1100, Nicholas Sheppard wrote: > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > > > The original source has:- > > > > e# Program: Portable C client makefile -- OS/2 version > > The e shouldn't be there. I don't know where that would have come from. It seems to have been there a long time. > You might be missing the cd step. Re-reading the documentation I wrote, > it's not all that clear and in hindsight the way the archives are > structured is a bit odd. I think the problem may have been due to the UNZIP program not over writing existing programs. Trying again, I don't get those problems. What I do get is problems in the Makefiles due to hardcoded paths which do not apply on my system along with non-existant openssl libs even though I seem to have built openssl successfully. I don't have a crypto_dll.lib. Should I get one built when building openssl? I do have a crypto.dll. > Nicholas S. > > -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:35:14 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Pine problem John Poltorak wrote: > > I don't have a crypto_dll.lib. Should I get one built when building > openssl? I do have a crypto.dll. This looks like a variant of yesterday's "zdll.lib" problem. Might be code for Win32 adding [_]dll to library names. h~ **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:29:01 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: openssl headers John Poltorak wrote: > > I have a C_INCLUDE_PATH defined as /usr/include and within that directory > all the openssl headers are placed in the openssl directory. > > If I want to build a program which requires the openssl headers, do I need > to update the INCLUDE variable or is there some other way to tell it where > to look? If the program that requires them refers to them as "#include ", they'll get found. Otherwise you can either add [path]/openssl to INCLUDE, or compile with "-I[path]/openssl". h~ **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:26:17 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: lib vs. dll (was: Re: Pine problem) On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:35:14 -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: >This looks like a variant of yesterday's "zdll.lib" problem. Might be >code for Win32 adding [_]dll to library names. can someone explain me the main difference between lib and dll? To be honest I don't really get the difference between that. On Unix systems I have the *.so files, what's the main difference to OS/2 DLL's and what should we use for UX2BS (and unixos2 in general)? cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:05:49 +1100 (EST) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: openssl headers On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > I have a C_INCLUDE_PATH defined as /usr/include and within that directory > all the openssl headers are placed in the openssl directory. > > If I want to build a program which requires the openssl headers, do I need > to update the INCLUDE variable or is there some other way to tell it where > to look? If the program you want to build uses the correct convention for the OpenSSL headers, then no you shouldn't need to change it. I haven't had any problems with Python's SSL extension or building libpq (PostgreSQL client library). Regards, Andrew. -- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au (alt) | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:05:49 +1100 (EST) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: openssl headers On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > I have a C_INCLUDE_PATH defined as /usr/include and within that directory > all the openssl headers are placed in the openssl directory. > > If I want to build a program which requires the openssl headers, do I need > to update the INCLUDE variable or is there some other way to tell it where > to look? If the program you want to build uses the correct convention for the OpenSSL headers, then no you shouldn't need to change it. I haven't had any problems with Python's SSL extension or building libpq (PostgreSQL client library). Regards, Andrew. -- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au (alt) | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:35:55 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: New ZLIB On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:15:09 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: >Agreed. However, this requires two things: >1. New library version itself must be backward compatible, so old > applications continue to work. This is not always the case (see libpng > for a nasty sample). How do you keep the ordinals if some imports have disappeared? Eg, trying to build ZLIB 1.2.1 using Hung-Chi Chu's import def. He included some imports that he shouldn't of have and these are gone now. I tried commenting them out but now get this error LINK386 : error L2022: ÿ (alias ÿ) : export undefined >2. Even when switching to import by name, the OS/2 port must maintain > the old ordinals, which means no fully automated build is possible. How exactly do you move over to import by name and keep the old ordinals? Dave New Email Address - please update your Address book dave_yeo at paralynx.com New Email Address - please update your Address book dave_yeo at paralynx.com