Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:04:05 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 309 ************************************************** Monday 08 March 2004 Number 309 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Stefan Neis 2 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Stefan Neis 3 Re: Re: Lynx and Ncurses : Dave and Natalie" 4 Re: Re: Lynx and Ncurses : John Poltorak 5 Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses : Dave and Natalie" 6 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Dave Parsons" 7 Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 : Stefan Neis 8 Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses : John Poltorak 9 Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses : Thomas Dickey 10 Building XFree86 : John Poltorak 11 Re: Building XFree86 : Holger Veit 12 Re: Building XFree86 : Holger Veit 13 Re: Building XFree86 : John Poltorak 14 Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses : Stefan Neis **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:13:47 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Knut St. Osmundsen wrote: > > typedef struct _SPBCDATA { (snipp) > > typedef SPBCDATA *PSPBCDATA; > Thanks, this have been added now. Are you going to/Did you increment __INNOTEK_LIBC__ for that change? I need some test in wxWindows header files to either add that declaration myself or rely on the header files for it. So far, I was using #if defined (__EMX__) && !defined(USE_OS2_TOOLKIT_HEADERS) which won't work any longer one I have an os2emx.h containing the declaration... > > 2. In sys/locale.h, the definition of "struct lconv" is surrounded by > > #ifdef __INTERNAL_DEFS, (snipp) > That's a bug. > I'm fixing it. > > make "emxbind -ep" work on the executable again? > Thanks for the report. It's a bug, missing "e" in the getopt arguments. > Have fixed it now. Thanks a lot for all your work. Meanwhile I'm fighting the next problem (trying to build a DLL): Using "gcc -Zdll" (or "gcc -shared" if I remember your extensions correctly), can handle "long" command lines, but does require a module definition file, which I'd rather avoid. So I came up with the idea of using "dllar" (and "dllar -Zomf" - I was rather surprised to find that this is actually apparently working, though only for individual object files, not for libraries) as linker command. However, the drawback is that it doesn't like long command lines - it typically chokes on the set of input files that wxWindows' Makefile is trying to pass to it. Is there an easier alternative than rewriting dllar.cmd to Unix shell language to work around that? Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:51:01 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Stefan Neis wrote: (snipp) > So I came up with the idea of using "dllar" (snipp) BTW, talking about dllar.cmd, I found that using > call doCommand('((cat 'tmpdefFile' | sort.exe) | (uniq.exe | rxqueue.exe' queTmp'))'); instead of the original line (without all those parentheses within the command), avoids the out-of-memory error, that I'm _always_ getting with the unmodified version. Regards, Stefan **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 10:07:20 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Re: Lynx and Ncurses On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:01:08 +1000 (est), Nicholas Sheppard wrote: >On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Patrick Ash wrote: > >> Don't know of any list, but the only apps I have found that can use >> (not necessarily require) ncurses are lynx, tin and mutt. There are >> probably others, but I have not found any but these 3. The XFree86 text mode config program also uses ncurses Dave **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:33:38 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Lynx and Ncurses On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:07:20AM -0800, Dave and Natalie wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:01:08 +1000 (est), Nicholas Sheppard wrote: > > >On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Patrick Ash wrote: > > > >> Don't know of any list, but the only apps I have found that can use > >> (not necessarily require) ncurses are lynx, tin and mutt. There are > >> probably others, but I have not found any but these 3. > > The XFree86 text mode config program also uses ncurses Is this something new? I never came across it when I last tried XFree86. > Dave > -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:32:15 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:33:38 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> The XFree86 text mode config program also uses ncurses > >Is this something new? I never came across it when I last tried XFree86. Well not so new anymore. I think it first came with 4.0. On OS/2 it came with 4.3 and now 4.4. Screen shots at http://www.os2world.com/os2files/xfree86/installation_v4.html In case anyone missed it XFree86/2 ver 4.4 was released last week and is at ftp.netlabs.org. Warning ftp.netlabs.org doesn't seem to work with a browser (including wget) so you need to use a real ftp program eg ncftp. This version of XFree is compiled to install in /usr/X11R6 instead of /XFree86. We're actually ahead of most Linux dists as they won't be updating to 4.4 due to license changes. (the XFree team wants credit and that is incompatible with the GPL) Dave **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:32:16 +0100 (CET) From: "Dave Parsons" Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:13:47 +0100 (CET), Stefan Neis wrote: > > > > make "emxbind -ep" work on the executable again? > > Thanks for the report. It's a bug, missing "e" in the getopt arguments. > > Have fixed it now. Until the new emxbind is released, you can do the same thing with exehdr:- exehdr /PM:PM minimal.exe Dave **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:20:51 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: GCC 3.2.2 Beta 4 On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Stefan Neis wrote: > Is there an easier alternative than rewriting dllar.cmd to Unix shell > language to work around that? My dllar.sh seems to be mostly working, anyone interested? Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:36:11 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:32:15PM -0800, Dave and Natalie wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:33:38 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> The XFree86 text mode config program also uses ncurses > > > >Is this something new? I never came across it when I last tried XFree86. > > Well not so new anymore. I think it first came with 4.0. On OS/2 it > came with 4.3 and now 4.4. Screen shots at > http://www.os2world.com/os2files/xfree86/installation_v4.html It looks like a Dialog app... Is it included with 4.4? I couldn't see it. > In case anyone missed it XFree86/2 ver 4.4 was released last week and > is at ftp.netlabs.org. Warning ftp.netlabs.org doesn't seem to work > with a browser (including wget) so you need to use a real ftp program > eg ncftp. No problem with Firefox... > This version of XFree is compiled to install in /usr/X11R6 instead of > /XFree86. I'm really pleased to hear that. It fits nicely into the FHS directory structure that we have wanted for a while. > We're actually ahead of most Linux dists as they won't be updating to > 4.4 due to license changes. (the XFree team wants credit and that is > incompatible with the GPL) That's good to hear. It would be nice to have OS/2 at the leading edge of OSS development. I think it's better placed now than it ever has been. > Dave -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 06:12:16 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Dickey Subject: Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > We're actually ahead of most Linux dists as they won't be updating to > > 4.4 due to license changes. (the XFree team wants credit and that is > > incompatible with the GPL) As written, the GPL doesn't address this - it's an interpretation which was made outside the actual license. Something to be said about interpretations is that they don't have to match what's written down. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:13:34 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Building XFree86 Do the building instructions for XFree86 apply to the OS/2 version or are there any separate instructions for OS/2? -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:18:03 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: Building XFree86 On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:13:34AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > Do the building instructions for XFree86 apply to the OS/2 version or are > there any separate instructions for OS/2? There has been a separate document on building on OS/2 but it might be obsolete now. In principle, given the appropriate compiler and tool environment, there is not much difference in building it on Unix and on OS/2, except the buildos2.cmd script which feeds certain parameters to the toplevel Makefile. Holger **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:28:36 +0100 From: Holger Veit Subject: Re: Building XFree86 On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:42AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:18:03PM +0100, Holger Veit wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:13:34AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > Do the building instructions for XFree86 apply to the OS/2 version or are > > > there any separate instructions for OS/2? > > > > There has been a separate document on building on OS/2 but it might be > > obsolete now. > > I found notes for an OS/2 build here:- > > http://www.xfree86.org/4.4.0/OS2Notes.html > > but they refer to 4.0 and wondered if they had been superceeded... In general, they still apply. Holger **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:29:42 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building XFree86 On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 12:18:03PM +0100, Holger Veit wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:13:34AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > Do the building instructions for XFree86 apply to the OS/2 version or are > > there any separate instructions for OS/2? > > There has been a separate document on building on OS/2 but it might be > obsolete now. I found notes for an OS/2 build here:- http://www.xfree86.org/4.4.0/OS2Notes.html but they refer to 4.0 and wondered if they had been superceeded... > In principle, given the appropriate compiler and tool > environment, there is not much difference in building it on Unix and on > OS/2, except the buildos2.cmd script which feeds certain parameters to > the toplevel Makefile. > > Holger > -- John **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:35:06 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Re: XFree86 and Ncurses On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > We're actually ahead of most Linux dists as they won't be updating to > > > 4.4 due to license changes. (the XFree team wants credit and that is > > > incompatible with the GPL) > > As written, the GPL doesn't address this - it's an interpretation which > was made outside the actual license. Actually, paragraph 6 of GPL is saying .... > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise > of the rights granted herein. .... and adding "only distribute with credits to XFree86 team" is one such "further restriction", at least, that's the rationale that was given to me... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.