Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 00:04:01 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 332 ************************************************** Wednesday 31 March 2004 Number 332 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Targets in Makefiles : John Poltorak 2 Re: Targets in Makefiles : John Poltorak 3 TIFF for OS/2 : John Poltorak 4 Re: TIFF for OS/2 : Henry Sobotka 5 Re: TIFF for OS/2 : John Poltorak 6 Re: TIFF for OS/2 : John Poltorak 7 Flight Simulator : John Poltorak 8 Re: Targets in Makefiles : Henry Sobotka 9 Re: Flight Simulator : Steve Wendt" 10 Re: Flight Simulator : Dave and Natalie" 11 Re: TIFF for OS/2 : Dave and Natalie" 12 Re: Naming convention for libraries : Dave and Natalie" 13 Re: TIFF for OS/2 : Stefan Neis 14 Re: Targets in Makefiles : Stefan Neis 15 Re: Targets in Makefiles : John Poltorak 16 Re: Targets in Makefiles : John Poltorak 17 Re: TIFF for OS/2 : John Poltorak 18 Re: TIFF for OS/2 : Stefan Neis 19 libtool : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 14:59:59 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Targets in Makefiles On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:41:39PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote: > Something which would work slightly better is this: > > .PHONY: zlib > > zlib: /usr/lib/z.dll > > /usr/lib/z.dll: > at build zlib > > "PHONY" just says: "It's not a real target, just check dependencies", > so "make zlib" will just ensure that /usr/lib/z.dll exists. If it doesn't, > it's going to run the command " at build zlib" to build it. Much obliged for that - I'd never really understood what .PHONY meant. > Doesn't seem to > be easy to get make to handle a reasonable amount of all that > automatically, without having to specify rules for everything, though. I don't think it will be too bad. It's only for apps which have dependenies on other apps, ie both Zope and Mailman depend on Python having being installed > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:57:35 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Targets in Makefiles On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:41:39PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote: > .PHONY: zlib > > zlib: /usr/lib/z.dll > > /usr/lib/z.dll: > at build zlib > > "PHONY" just says: "It's not a real target, just check dependencies", > so "make zlib" will just ensure that /usr/lib/z.dll exists. If it doesn't, > it's going to run the command " at build zlib" to build it. Doesn't seem to > be easy to get make to handle a reasonable amount of all that > automatically, without having to specify rules for everything, though. This is what I have come up with so far, and it looks as though it may do what I want:- python = /usr/bin/python.exe ncurses = /usr/lib/ncurses.a mailman = /usr/local/mailman/mail/wrapper zope = /usr/local/Zope/bin/zopectl python: ncurses readline gdbm zlib expat gmp crypt $(python) ncurses: $(ncurses) mailman: python $(mailman) zope: python $(zope) tiff: zlib jpeg $(tiff) gd: jpeg png freetype png: zlib $(png) $(python): at echo build python $(ncurses): at echo build ncurses $(mailman): at echo build mailman $(zope): at echo build zope ..PHONY: python mailman zope ncurses readline gdbm zlib expat gmp crypt \ gd jpeg png freetype What I could do with is to be able to use a macro in the rule, but I'm not sure is this is possible. The rule in all these cases so far is to run 'build' with the target name so in the case of zope, I would run 'make zope' which in turn would run 'build zope'. I want the Makefile pseudo target to be the target of command line. Is there any way to translate $(zope) into zope for the purpose of this exercise? I guess $(zope) will get resolved before the command line is run... > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:13:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: TIFF for OS/2 The most recent OS/2 port of TIFF that I can find is v3.4beta037 by HCChu. Is there anything more recent? From the version number this sounds to have been ported from development code. -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:14:51 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: TIFF for OS/2 John Poltorak wrote: > > The most recent OS/2 port of TIFF that I can find is v3.4beta037 by HCChu. > > Is there anything more recent? From the version number this sounds to have > been ported from development code. I have a 3.5.5 here which I believe was done by Platon and came from one of the XFree86/OS2 sites. h~ **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:07:05 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: TIFF for OS/2 On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 05:14:51PM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > The most recent OS/2 port of TIFF that I can find is v3.4beta037 by HCChu. > > > > Is there anything more recent? From the version number this sounds to have > > been ported from development code. > > I have a 3.5.5 here which I believe was done by Platon and came from one > of the XFree86/OS2 sites. Thanks for that - I just got hold of them. Unfortunately there is no source code or patches with them. What is strange is that the original developer SGI only has the source for v3.4beta037 here:- ftp://ftp.sgi.com/graphics/tiff/ I wonder where our Russian friends managed to find the source for 3.5.5... > h~ -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:17:46 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: TIFF for OS/2 On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 12:07:05AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > I wonder where our Russian friends managed to find the source for 3.5.5... This appears to be the latest source release:- ftp://ftp.remotesensing.org/pub/libtiff/tiff-v3.6.1.tar.gz -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:38:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Flight Simulator Has anyone ever come across an open source version of Flight Simulator? Check this out:- http://www.flightgear.org/ Buildable on OS/2? -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:10:29 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Targets in Makefiles John, one way to simplify the makefile would be something like: PROGRAMS = a b c d $(PROGRAMS): at echo build $ at a: b c: d a which produces: xanadu/ gmake a -f test.mk build b build a xanadu/ gmake c -f test.mk build d build b build a build c xanadu/ gmake b -f test.mk build b h~ -- Free software, free minds. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:44:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Steve Wendt" Subject: Re: Flight Simulator On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:38:33 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >http://www.flightgear.org/ >Buildable on OS/2? That uses plib, which once upon a time I had building in OS/2. Haven't looked at it in several years, though... (and never at flightgear). ----------- "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato (427-347 B.C.) **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:30:27 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Flight Simulator On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:38:33 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >Has anyone ever come across an open source version of Flight Simulator? > >Check this out:- > >http://www.flightgear.org/ > > >Buildable on OS/2? It depends on a couple of libraries that most likely wouldn't be easy to port. Also C++ with all the problems that come with that. Dave **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:29:10 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: TIFF for OS/2 On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:17:46 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 12:07:05AM +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> I wonder where our Russian friends managed to find the source for 3.5.5... > >This appears to be the latest source release:- > >ftp://ftp.remotesensing.org/pub/libtiff/tiff-v3.6.1.tar.gz I just built this. Configure is handwritten and can't find gcc. Seems to be bothered by DOS type paths and drive letters I applied Hung-Chi Chu's patch from tiff34.zip and added a couple of source files and imports and removed a -a and it builds fine. Also needed an uptodate libjpeg Dave ps configure also outputs this Do they really still make i386-pc-os2-emx systems?! **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:35:24 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Naming convention for libraries --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HVF8N0138764=_=_=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:20:56 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > >-- >John Hi John libz 1.2.1 might be a better target. It seems compatible with 1.1.3+. Take a look at the makefile(.in) that comes with 1.2.1. Also look at the hand written configure script. And especially win32\DLL_FAQ.txt. One thing I notice is that the correct name for the DLL should be zlib.dll or perhaps zlib1.dll. Also the maintainers want everyone to import by name. I have a DEF file that works by the most common import by ordinal and all import by name. If you want to import only by name the win32 DEF makes a good starting point. Dave --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HVF8N0138764=_=_=_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="zos2.def.gz" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 H4sICG4LZ0AABnpvczIuZGVmAIVV0a6aQBB9N/EH+rRvpklzU9DCbX0RlaakXiVAm7YvZoUVN3dl zbJ4I1/fAaFRMlje3HN25syZ2XHlzQMn+E3arxwOlm64CDw/8jbr+mhUCr4jCdWUxPJ4UizPucwI HCqqLuTMVP3beDKfjNFwsNgsXXLz+YG72jhLiOtEzi3w8mMVef7KJevNOvzmBC5wwshZfA+9Py4Z m7b1PBy4v/xNEIXDwXAwJTua85jsiyzWkDEfDmrFIORno2FmfSKBG3pLdx2tnRf3ykjYXlDNyMwY 96NulpDZZwTnWXN7Yt2h5A6ur0+68aeEJmeaxSzpqm6yhkwveX1eWTkzjH6BC3mqGJN+RsBypoHy sZ/iU0WPOXDMfs5cFlUx9gMtvuJHcMQ2HzjSKW1i93sbXrIYGM/9jGvxNta/htEUP8EKayhzGr9C EMzBG0bdSRubo2rSFvACuGBfBU3BRqs7MFNSaC64vnT73b4cMsNqaFGTzDD9Ldx2xkI4kO5fCgvL kZbyxOCJGFhpaZk0KBY7LcHbUzs6WCPTUjEK0gysh2n5pnj1gkxspNLypHim9wBjtQNcaEhrYm1L y5TVIDby9U2YKxN3A24CaGBPPi2L7ArbeOC9KPIDRMatzBmDOTNxJxV741UTTdxGzYQAELeRycol XHEsZA4Wj3HBTCmpAMUbEAtGFVCg3q6qKYkPLH7Ni2N3omkimBrDxGIxYxVXUNefKTlTxWWRkwO8 tPwDSWQ20kRI+Uq+vL9bMV7G9RYE9S+himEC5cHauAaBrYA16oZThZn8Zy+0gh6kq/aYL2GYIRra Jaa34MxW052o/lCwHeNeO2V107z7C+R0+H6qBwAA --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HVF8N0138764=_=_=_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Makefile.emx.gz" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 H4sICM7CY0AABk1ha2VmaWxlLmVteACFVG1r20AM/hyD/4NggcYBOzQbYzgYkjrpmtVtRlIGKwPj Oufm6NkOtsOC2+63T7pz0kuyl0B8svTokSzptC5YwrfgQeL2NmVhGmzL4nB9rDWN6a0/ns5R1e4o q9XjWSw2S2YawfSisT0r22tP8AfTGAfBsX4phGlcTG93ei3ca++BZxTK973HOJbSZTD6vPDsWR/s 9MOnj2CPw3BxF97chZP5/HYWhmDfp9USn3magD11yCsYKzfkXrIk2ojKwRPsEuzAAVvUCMdQdsIF K8nh22TunTt955xeFleTIPDKFcmziy8LTDNaCla87zs5xHmKyZYliUUsVY81z/HYZNKGEsYSUcVQ qgrGCPrDNED96k3FBWp4tsOg9BDFT0raOaCYRGXl5JREJIQLtYOVA7aN0rVgDn4ZpDzjGHtNLwSL Vyx+cqFiZWUa9HQhomK3hsE4xA7NR/Pv4dfR3ZXnuO3Okc6CAZKv86KCI8uAsm+xeJXDigmRw8+8 EEt4AaenZ3CqsBH0Ip0BpPtZq9Xtdvd5y0zhcjQNJmNAwxmoUDxBJu1DB1CtWPYHohpnTJHMriVB k6oo2T/RWkjlkXCqn6ywi+NNTbeIKN3ydA12jsWPoM7LPo3RkYFYNVP72fdf5aTlTcsavj1oN6r3 ZJTDS8G173X3XW4oiLbj+xZSqftgEXt7qOGon8pEZHob3Lc5+R+dBjzk41lZaUN4OHitYWOmhrc7 ak1YJ3q1Ik71akWc6tWKIP1eHcseOiuo4zxL8NSj6SjqlmyMHvYAoBrzFlszHsywlgdeMMGizEV0 kYKdQBfr1P311yuJ9gj/lEZXld003plGwZClZK7sws3oemIR1030xGgbOThasEtGxgO1Gz1cxI1r T04yzW1LW57HAAr3G9yeqHfcBQAA --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HVF8N0138764=_=_=_-- **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:21:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: TIFF for OS/2 On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > I have a 3.5.5 here which I believe was done by Platon and came from one > > of the XFree86/OS2 sites. > > Thanks for that - I just got hold of them. Unfortunately there is no > source code or patches with them. BTW, wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows) contains 3.5.2 which compiles OOTB on OS/2, so I suppose, patches are not needed ... ;-) Regards, Stefan **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:27:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Targets in Makefiles On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Henry Sobotka wrote: > John, one way to simplify the makefile would be something like: > > PROGRAMS = a b c d The problem is, John doesn't want dependencies to work on files a, b, c, d (which don't exist) but e.g. on /usr/bin/a.exe, /usr/lib/b-3.7.5.lib etc... At least, that's what I got so far ... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:37:00 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Targets in Makefiles On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 12:10:29AM -0500, Henry Sobotka wrote: > John, one way to simplify the makefile would be something like: > > PROGRAMS = a b c d > > $(PROGRAMS): > at echo build $ at > > a: b > c: d a Thanks, Henry. I've never really mastered Makefiles but it looks like you can be pretty creative with them when you know what you are doing. This is something I came up with yesterday:- mailman: python echo $ at python: ncurses readline gdbm zlib expat gmp crypt echo $ at ..DEFAULT: echo $< ..SILENT: I'm not sure how much different this is from what you've suggested. With yours, every program has to be included under PROGRAMS. With mine every target has its own rule, which happens to be identical in every case... although perhaps it might be different in some circumstances... > h~ > -- > Free software, free minds. -- John **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:44:53 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Targets in Makefiles On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Henry Sobotka wrote: > > > John, one way to simplify the makefile would be something like: > > > > PROGRAMS = a b c d > > The problem is, John doesn't want dependencies to work on files a, b, c, d > (which don't exist) but e.g. on /usr/bin/a.exe, /usr/lib/b-3.7.5.lib > etc... > At least, that's what I got so far ... Actually, my principal concern is establishing a dependency list for apps. Initially I am just concerned with getting things built in the correct order. Checking to see if an app has already been built is something I can try to incorporate later. At this stage there is an implicit assumption that nothing has been built. If this works out, I may eventually be able to specify an 'all:' target which builds a unixos2 distro :-)... > Regards, > Stefan > -- > Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. > -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:47:39 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: TIFF for OS/2 On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:21:21AM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > I have a 3.5.5 here which I believe was done by Platon and came from one > > > of the XFree86/OS2 sites. > > > > Thanks for that - I just got hold of them. Unfortunately there is no > > source code or patches with them. > > BTW, wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows) contains 3.5.2 which compiles OOTB > on OS/2, so I suppose, patches are not needed ... ;-) Since we have discovered 3.6.1, will that now be included? :-)... > Regards, > Stefan > -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:44:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: TIFF for OS/2 On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > BTW, wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows) contains 3.5.2 which compiles OOTB > > on OS/2, so I suppose, patches are not needed ... ;-) > > Since we have discovered 3.6.1, will that now be included? :-)... That was discussed some time ago and the majority believes that it's not worth the trouble to update ... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:52:23 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: libtool I'm still trying to get my head around libtool... I don't have it installed but see some apps saying 'creating libtool' during the build process. I guess this means that they themselves have been built using libtool. This must mean that if I install libtool it won't necessarily change the supplied app, for that, I believe libtoolise needs to be run... Is that correct? And if so when should this happen? AIUI an OS/2 friendly version of libtool is available here:- http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/libtool/libtool-1_4_3.zip Is this the one I should install? -- John