Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:04:06 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 345 ************************************************** Sunday 11 April 2004 Number 345 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: structure has no member named `st_blksize' : John Poltorak 2 Re: structure has no member named `st_blksize' : Andreas Buening 3 autoconf 2.59 / automake 1.8.3 : Andreas Buening 4 make 3.81beta1 : Andreas Buening 5 Re: autoconf 2.59 / automake 1.8.3 : John Poltorak 6 Re: autoconf 2.59 / automake 1.8.3 : Andreas Buening 7 Stacksize : John Poltorak 8 Problem building GZIP : John Poltorak 9 Re: TeX : Pete Milne **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:08:30 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: structure has no member named `st_blksize' On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:22:52PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 01:13:02PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > > There hasn't been working OS/2 support in gawk 3.0.x. > > > > Actually, there has... If you look at v3.0.3 there is a pc directory which > > includes a Makefile and I've just managed to get it working. > > I didn't say there is no OS/2 support. There's just no _working_ OS/2 > support. What you've found is just the old support for a 16 bit compiler > from the late stone age which was abandoned many years ago. But it does work with EMX/GCC... Are there any restrictions or limitations in the .exe produced? > Bye, > Andreas -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:12:59 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: structure has no member named `st_blksize' John Poltorak wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:22:52PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > > I didn't say there is no OS/2 support. There's just no _working_ OS/2 > > support. What you've found is just the old support for a 16 bit compiler > > from the late stone age which was abandoned many years ago. > > But it does work with EMX/GCC... It might compile because there was also DOS support. > Are there any restrictions or limitations in the .exe produced? I don't know but I think so. Bye, Andreas **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:11 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: autoconf 2.59 / automake 1.8.3 Hi, all! I've uploaded autoconf 2.59 and automake 1.8.3 to http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/autoconf-2_59.zip http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/automake-1_8_3.zip To whom it might concern: I haven't put any sh/UNIXROOT/Innotek specific patches into autoconf. And, the unpatched automake 1.8.x from gnu.org is broken. You can run the testsuites of autoconf and automake (takes a very long time). Only few tests fail (mostly not due to autoconf/automake). Bye, Andreas **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:25 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: make 3.81beta1 Hello! I've just uploaded sources and binaries of make 3.81 beta1: http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/make/make-3_81beta1.zip http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/make/make-3_81beta1-bin.zip You might want to give it a try because several bugs have been fixed and because this version will go into the next make release which will be the first one that is supposed to work out of the box for OS/2. These bugs discussed in the 'make bugs' thread several months ago should have been fixed: >X:\usr\src\gnuplot\src >make -f ../config/makefile.os2 >Building allterm.h >echo T=..\term\ | tr \\ / >4alltrm.sh >grep "(T)" makefile.all | \ > sed "s/CORETERM = /CORETERM=%/;s/xlib.trm/xlib.trm%/" | \ > sed "s/%/\""/g;s/(/{/g;s/)/}/g" >>4alltrm.sh >sed: -e expression #1, char 11: Unknown option to `s' > >Process terminated by SIGPIPE >make: *** [..\docs\allterm.h] Error 1 Thanks to Franz Bakan for his bug reports. Bye, Andreas **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:00:37 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: autoconf 2.59 / automake 1.8.3 On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 05:50:11PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > Hi, all! > > I've uploaded autoconf 2.59 and automake 1.8.3 to > http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/autoconf-2_59.zip > http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/automake-1_8_3.zip That's excellent! Is there any chance of an updated libtool to make up the full set of GNU Auto tools? > To whom it might concern: I haven't put any sh/UNIXROOT/Innotek > specific patches into autoconf. > And, the unpatched automake 1.8.x from gnu.org is broken. > > You can run the testsuites of autoconf and automake (takes a very > long time). Only few tests fail (mostly not due to autoconf/automake). > > > Bye, > Andreas -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:18:37 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: autoconf 2.59 / automake 1.8.3 John Poltorak wrote: > Is there any chance of an updated libtool to make up the full set of GNU > Auto tools? Not in the near future. Dealing with libtool is far too time consuming. ;-) Bye, Andreas **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:56:19 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Stacksize One of the LDFLAGS options for GNU Awk v3.0.3 is '-Zstack 512'. Presumably this sets the stacksize, although I'm not sure what to... - seems too small for bytes but to large for kB... What would be an appropriate value? When building GZIP, the .def file includes:- STACKSIZE 0x80000 Given the program was originally written in 1993, should be value be any different these days? -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:51:18 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Problem building GZIP Anyone recognise this problem when building GZIP:- ? gcc -c _match.s mv _match.o match.o rm -f _match.s gcc -o gzip gzip.o zip.o deflate.o trees.o bits.o unzip.o inflate.o util.o crypt.o lzw.o unlzw.o unpack.o unlzh.o getopt.o match.o gzip.o: Undefined symbol _chown referenced from text segment deflate.o: Definition of symbol _longest_match (multiply defined) match.o: Definition of symbol _longest_match (multiply defined) make: *** [gzip] Error 1 -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:07:38 +0100 From: Pete Milne Subject: Re: TeX John Poltorak wrote: >Does FreeBSD include TeX? And if so how much does it differ from emTeX? > >Also does anyone know if emTeX includes source? I'd like to rebuild it use >a more FHS compliant directory structure. > >Can anyone remind me where the latest version of emTeX can be found? > >Is this it:- ? > >http://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/os2/emtex/?action=/tex-archive/systems/os2/ > > > Yes. But there is a version (emTeXTDS) which has the correct directory structure. And there's also VTeX, which was updated more recently. Pete