Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:04:17 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 357 ************************************************** Thursday 22 April 2004 Number 357 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: BYACC : John Poltorak 2 FAQ was cygpath: not found : Dave Yeo" 3 gunzip : John Poltorak 4 Re: Building wxWindows : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 5 Re: Vile build error : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 6 Re: Building wxWindows : John Poltorak 7 Re: Vile build error : John Poltorak 8 Re: Building wxWindows : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 9 Re: gunzip : Illya Vaes 10 Re: _wait3 : Andreas Buening 11 Re: BYACC : Andreas Buening 12 UnixOS2 site (was: Re: cygpath: not found) : Michael Zolk 13 Re: BYACC : Andreas Buening 14 Re: gunzip : Steve Wendt 15 What to with wxWindows? : John Poltorak 16 Re: FAQ was cygpath: not found : Jeff Robinson 17 Re: UnixOS2 site : Jeff Robinson 18 Re: BYACC : Andrew MacIntyre 19 Re: Re: UnixOS2 site : John Poltorak 20 Sources of info : John Poltorak 21 Re: gunzip : John Poltorak 22 Re: Sources of info : John Poltorak 23 Re: Re: UnixOS2 site : John Poltorak 24 Re: Re: UnixOS2 site : Jeff Robinson 25 autoconf problem : John Poltorak 26 no acceptable ld found in $PATH : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:10:03 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: BYACC On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 08:20:44PM +1000, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > Don't forget -Zstack. Many applications will crash occasionally > > > without a reasonable stack. > > > > I thought the default stacksize was 8MB if nothing was specified... > > Only for a.out. Its much smaller (4k or 8k I think) for -Zomf. This is what I get when running 'emxstack -d' against \usr\bin\*.exe :- a2p.exe: 32000 Kbyte awk.exe: 512 Kbyte captoinfo.exe: 8192 Kbyte cert.exe: 8192 Kbyte clear.exe: 8192 Kbyte cmp.exe: 32 Kbyte diff.exe: 32 Kbyte diff3.exe: 32 Kbyte flex.exe: 8192 Kbyte info.exe: 8192 Kbyte infocmp.exe: 8192 Kbyte infokey.exe: 8192 Kbyte infotocap.exe: 8192 Kbyte install-info.exe: 8192 Kbyte less.exe: 32 Kbyte lesskey.exe: 32 Kbyte m4.exe: 32 Kbyte make.exe: 8192 Kbyte makeinfo.exe: 8192 Kbyte openssl.exe: 32 Kbyte perl.exe: 32000 Kbyte reset.exe: 8192 Kbyte sdiff.exe: 32 Kbyte sed.exe: 32 Kbyte sh.exe: 8192 Kbyte speedf.exe: 8192 Kbyte tack.exe: 8192 Kbyte texindex.exe: 8192 Kbyte tic.exe: 8192 Kbyte toe.exe: 8192 Kbyte tput.exe: 8192 Kbyte tset.exe: 8192 Kbyte ufc.exe: 8192 Kbyte which.exe: 8192 Kbyte yacc.exe: 32 Kbyte All of them were built in the last couple of days... It looks like 32kB is the default for -Zomf and 8Mb for the rest apart from those apps where it is set explicitly. Would it make more sense to set them all to the same value? > -- > 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 -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:43:27 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: FAQ was cygpath: not found On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:59:15 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: >John Poltorak wrote: > >> A FAQ would be an excellent idea, but I wouldn't know where to start with >> one... > >Every time you (or anybody else) raises a question that can >be answered generally and could be also interesting for other >people in the future the problem should be documented. > >E.g., ask Jeff to add a site like > >

Known bugs of the build system

Another idea is to add FAQ to the subject line everytime an answer is given that should be in the FAQ Dave **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:20:48 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: gunzip What is the best way of provide a gunzip on OS/2? cp -p gzip.exe gunzip.exe or echo gzip %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 >gunzip.cmd The same applies to bunzip2 and possibly other programs. -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:28:45 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building wxWindows Hi, > g:/ux2bs/workdir/wxBase-2.5.1 > wxBase-2.5.1 > Using:- autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.59 (release for OS/2) > configure.in:5906: g:/ux2bs/bin/m4: Cannot open autoconf_inc.m4: No such file or directory > autom4te: g:/ux2bs/bin/m4.exe failed with exit status: 1 > > Where does autoconf_inc.m4 originate? Should be included in wxWindows distribution, you might have found an error in packaging. > Since the provided configure script was already built with that version I > guess it's no big deal. Yes, for 2.5.x the distributed configure script(s) should be OK for OS/2, no need to regenerate them. > ../bk-deps gcc -c -o wxzlib_adler32.o -Ilib/wx/include/base-2.5 -I./include > -O2 -Zmt -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Wall src/zlib/adler32.c > SYS1034: The system cannot find the command processor in the path > specified. > OS/2 Command Interpreter version 4.5 Sound like MAKESHELL is not properly set ... Regards, Stefan **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:34:33 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Vile build error Hi, > > This is the error at the time that the build falls over:- > > > spawn.c: In function `bktoshell': > > spawn.c:228: too many arguments to function `getpgrp' > > make: *** [spawn.o] Error 1 > > > I've tried building it again, this time without Posix/2 and it does work > now. It looks like Posix/2 has a problem with [set|get]pgrp... No idea, what's going wrong, as far as I can see, both Posix/2 and plain EMX have the same prototype for that function. "Something" seems to confuse autoconf ... Stefan **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:43:09 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building wxWindows On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 05:28:45PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > Where does autoconf_inc.m4 originate? > > Should be included in wxWindows distribution, you might have found > an error in packaging. It wasn't in here:- http://unc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/wxwindows/wxBase-2.5.1.tar.gz > > OS/2 Command Interpreter version 4.5 > > Sound like MAKESHELL is not properly set ... Oops! That sounds like one for the FAQ :-).... Here is what I get now:- ../bk-deps gcc -c -o wxzlib_inffast.o -Ilib/wx/include/base-2.5 -I./include -O2 -Zmt -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Wall src/zlib/inffast.c rm -f lib/wxzlib.a ar rcu lib/wxzlib.a wxzlib_adler32.o wxzlib_compress.o wxzlib_crc32.o wxzlib_gzio.o wxzlib_uncompr.o wxzlib_deflate.o wxzlib_trees.o wxzlib_zutil.o wxzlib_inflate.o wxzlib_infblock.o wxzlib_inftrees.o wxzlib_infcodes.o wxzlib_infutil.o wxzlib_inffast.o echo lib/wxzlib.a lib/wxzlib.a ../bk-deps gcc -c -o wxexpat_xmlparse.o -I./src/expat -Ilib/wx/include/base-2.5 -I./include -O2 -Zmt -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Wall src/expat/lib/xmlparse.c ../bk-deps gcc -c -o wxexpat_xmlrole.o -I./src/expat -Ilib/wx/include/base-2.5 -I./include -O2 -Zmt -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Wall src/expat/lib/xmlrole.c ../bk-deps gcc -c -o wxexpat_xmltok.o -I./src/expat -Ilib/wx/include/base-2.5 -I./include -O2 -Zmt -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Wall src/expat/lib/xmltok.c rm -f lib/wxexpat.a ar rcu lib/wxexpat.a wxexpat_xmlparse.o wxexpat_xmlrole.o wxexpat_xmltok.o echo lib/wxexpat.a lib/wxexpat.a ../bk-deps gcc -c -o baselib_appbase.o -D__WX__ -I./src/zlib -I./src/expat/lib -DwxUSE_GUI=0 -DwxUSE_BASE=1 -Ilib/wx/include/base-2.5 -I./include -O2 -Zmt -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Wall src/common/appbase.cpp In file included from .\include\wx/app.h:20, from src/common/appbase.cpp:28: ..\include\wx/event.h:28: wx/clntdata.h: No such file or directory In file included from src/common/appbase.cpp:37: ..\include\wx/apptrait.h:147: wx/os2/apptbase.h: No such file or directory make: *** [baselib_appbase.o] Error 1 ../bk-deps gcc -c -o baselib_appbase.o -D__WX__ -I./src/zlib -I./src/expat/lib -DwxUSE_GUI=0 -DwxUSE_BASE=1 -Ilib/wx/include/base-2.5 -I./include -O2 -Zmt -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Wall src/common/appbase.cpp In file included from .\include\wx/app.h:20, from src/common/appbase.cpp:28: ..\include\wx/event.h:28: wx/clntdata.h: No such file or directory In file included from src/common/appbase.cpp:37: ..\include\wx/apptrait.h:147: wx/os2/apptbase.h: No such file or directory make: *** [baselib_appbase.o] Error 1 Should I expect to find the OS/2 headers in the standard base distribution? > Regards, > Stefan -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:38:16 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Vile build error On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 05:34:33PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > > This is the error at the time that the build falls over:- > > > > > spawn.c: In function `bktoshell': > > > spawn.c:228: too many arguments to function `getpgrp' > > > make: *** [spawn.o] Error 1 > > > > > > I've tried building it again, this time without Posix/2 and it does work > > now. It looks like Posix/2 has a problem with [set|get]pgrp... > > No idea, what's going wrong, as far as I can see, both Posix/2 and > plain EMX have the same prototype for that function. "Something" seems > to confuse autoconf ... Autoconf produces identical configure scripts which in turn produce identical Makefiles. The only difference is in the config.h. This is how they differ:- #define HAVE_GETHOSTNAME 1 < #define HAVE_KILLPG 1 < #define HAVE_POLL 1 < #define HAVE_POLL_H 1 < #define HAVE_REALPATH 1 < #define HAVE_SETITIMER 1 < #define HAVE_SIZECHANGE 1 < #define HAVE_ST_BLKSIZE 1 < #define HAVE_ST_BLOCKS 1 < #define HAVE_SYMLINK 1 < > #define MISSING_EXTERN_RINDEX 1 ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ with Posix/2 without Posix/2 > Stefan > > -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:09:11 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building wxWindows Hi, So we have two problems: > It wasn't in here:- > > http://unc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/wxwindows/wxBase-2.5.1.tar.gz Oops. Not good, IMHO. > Should I expect to find the OS/2 headers in the standard base > distribution? I think so, yes - at least those that are needed. After all some of the Windows, Unix, MacOS headers are included, too. I've submitted a bug report via SourceForge ... Stefan **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:55:17 CET From: Illya Vaes Subject: Re: gunzip ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:20:48 +0100 >What is the best way of provide a gunzip on OS/2? >cp -p gzip.exe gunzip.exe > >or > >echo gzip %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 >gunzip.cmd I'd say this should be "gzip -d" (decompress). Illya Vaes Tcl/Tk OS/2: http://www.vaeshiep.demon.nl/ **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:01:53 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: _wait3 Dave Yeo wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:02:28 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > > >Dave Yeo wrote: > >> > >> Trying to build TightVNC I get a bunch of unresolved symbols. I know how to redefine most but not _wait3. > Any ideas? > > > >Good question. I can link wait3() but it seems to be declared nowhere (emx). > > Hmm it doesn't link here and I can't find it declared anywhere. Its purpose is > wait3(), wait4(). wait for process to terminate or stop > and this is the code > /* reap any zombies */ > int status, pid; > while ((pid= wait3(&status, WNOHANG, (struct rusage *)0))>0); > > Wonder if I can just comment it out? I don't think so. At least make has some replacement code for systems without wait3(): #define WAIT_NOHANG(status) waitpid (-1, (status), WNOHANG) respectively #define WAIT_NOHANG(status) wait3 ((status), WNOHANG, (struct rusage *) 0) Bye, Andreas **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:01:20 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: BYACC John Poltorak wrote: > If I do use -Zomf will the program fail to build or will it just not work > as intended? Not work as intended. Bye, Andreas **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:01:20 +0200 From: Michael Zolk Subject: UnixOS2 site (was: Re: cygpath: not found) On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:54:09PM -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > On my last revision of the site I had made provisions for adding more > information to each piece of software. ( Such as > http://unixos2.com/pages/packages/GnuPG/index.html ). > > The only problem being that my time is somewhat limited right now so I > don't always catch in the list what might need to be in the "Known > Issues" portion for each piece of software. Would it be possible to set this up so that the maintainer of a package can change the contents of the respective page on his own? Michael -- **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:01:09 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: BYACC John Poltorak wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 08:20:44PM +1000, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > Don't forget -Zstack. Many applications will crash occasionally > > > > without a reasonable stack. > > > > > > I thought the default stacksize was 8MB if nothing was specified... > > > > Only for a.out. Its much smaller (4k or 8k I think) for -Zomf. > > This is what I get when running 'emxstack -d' against \usr\bin\*.exe :- > > a2p.exe: 32000 Kbyte > awk.exe: 512 Kbyte > captoinfo.exe: 8192 Kbyte > cert.exe: 8192 Kbyte > clear.exe: 8192 Kbyte > cmp.exe: 32 Kbyte > diff.exe: 32 Kbyte > diff3.exe: 32 Kbyte > flex.exe: 8192 Kbyte > info.exe: 8192 Kbyte > infocmp.exe: 8192 Kbyte > infokey.exe: 8192 Kbyte > infotocap.exe: 8192 Kbyte > install-info.exe: 8192 Kbyte > less.exe: 32 Kbyte > lesskey.exe: 32 Kbyte > m4.exe: 32 Kbyte > make.exe: 8192 Kbyte > makeinfo.exe: 8192 Kbyte > openssl.exe: 32 Kbyte > perl.exe: 32000 Kbyte > reset.exe: 8192 Kbyte > sdiff.exe: 32 Kbyte > sed.exe: 32 Kbyte > sh.exe: 8192 Kbyte > speedf.exe: 8192 Kbyte > tack.exe: 8192 Kbyte > texindex.exe: 8192 Kbyte > tic.exe: 8192 Kbyte > toe.exe: 8192 Kbyte > tput.exe: 8192 Kbyte > tset.exe: 8192 Kbyte > ufc.exe: 8192 Kbyte > which.exe: 8192 Kbyte > yacc.exe: 32 Kbyte > > All of them were built in the last couple of days... It looks like 32kB is > the default for -Zomf and 8Mb for the rest apart from those apps where it > is set explicitly. Would it make more sense to set them all to the same > value? To a sufficiently large value. It needn't be the same. I guess, 8 MB is a good value for most apps. Bye, Andreas **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:42:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Wendt Subject: Re: gunzip On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Illya Vaes wrote: > ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:20:48 +0100 > >What is the best way of provide a gunzip on OS/2? > >cp -p gzip.exe gunzip.exe > > > >or > > > >echo gzip %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 >gunzip.cmd > > I'd say this should be "gzip -d" (decompress). Right, otherwise it won't work, since argv[0] will still be gzip rather than gunzip, as in the first case. **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:18:09 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: What to with wxWindows? I think I've managed to compile wxWindows although make install might have partially failed... What can I do with it now? And how do I check it built correctly? Is there a recommended app for a first timer to try? -- John **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:47:27 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: FAQ was cygpath: not found Dave Yeo wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:59:15 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > > >>John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >>>A FAQ would be an excellent idea, but I wouldn't know where to start with >>>one... >> >>Every time you (or anybody else) raises a question that can >>be answered generally and could be also interesting for other >>people in the future the problem should be documented. >> >>E.g., ask Jeff to add a site like >> >>

Known bugs of the build system

> > > Another idea is to add FAQ to the subject line everytime an answer is given that should be in the FAQ > Dave > > > > Good idea... especially since I can create a mail filter that will give me a convenient place to collect them all. Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:46:27 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: UnixOS2 site Michael Zolk wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:54:09PM -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > > >>On my last revision of the site I had made provisions for adding more >>information to each piece of software. ( Such as >>http://unixos2.com/pages/packages/GnuPG/index.html ). >> >>The only problem being that my time is somewhat limited right now so I >>don't always catch in the list what might need to be in the "Known >>Issues" portion for each piece of software. > > > Would it be possible to set this up so that the maintainer of a package can > change the contents of the respective page on his own? > > Michael This would be the scenario I'd most be in favour of, but would have to talk it over some more with Ian (it's his server; and then figure out some sort've framework to work within). For now, though I'd accept either raw text or complete HTML from any folks that wanted to submit it. Each time I upload new versions of the page I also upload the PPWizard scripts, templates and graphics that I use to build the site so you can generate HTML that'll fit the existing "framework". I'm also open to suggestions! Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:54:38 +1000 (EST) From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Re: BYACC On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > All of them were built in the last couple of days... It looks like 32kB is > the default for -Zomf and 8Mb for the rest apart from those apps where it > is set explicitly. Would it make more sense to set them all to the same > value? I don't think so. Some apps use lots of stack, and others don't. If an app runs fine with 32kB for all testable scenarios, why offer it what it can't use? The items with explicit settings are there because the developer found the default wasn't enough. I suspect that for most cases the 8M default for a.out is wildly generous. I don't know enough about the fine details of OS/2/EMX processes to know whether this is just wasting VM space or actual memory, but instinct (not always reliable) tells me to conserve where possible. Python, which is a heavy consumer of stack, got by for quite a while with 1M. I've only increased it to 1.5M due to some changes in the regex code of 2.3 which noticeably increased stack consumption - which won't be a problem with 2.4 as the regex code is no longer recursive. -- 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 19 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:53:51 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: UnixOS2 site On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > Michael Zolk wrote: > > Would it be possible to set this up so that the maintainer of a package can > > change the contents of the respective page on his own? > > > > Michael > > This would be the scenario I'd most be in favour of, but would have to > talk it over some more with Ian (it's his server; and then figure out > some sort've framework to work within). For now, though I'd accept > either raw text or complete HTML from any folks that wanted to submit it. > > Each time I upload new versions of the page I also upload the PPWizard > scripts, templates and graphics that I use to build the site so you can > generate HTML that'll fit the existing "framework". > > I'm also open to suggestions! Zope? > Jeff > > > > -- > ---------------- > Whatza JamochaMUD? > http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca > > Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik > ----------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:51:55 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Sources of info With the idea of putting together some sort of FAQ, I thought it would be useful to compile a list of sources of info for building and using Unix apps on OS/2. Unfortunately a lot of good sources are badly out of date and need updating. However they are still useful to have... Here are some which come to mind:- Installing EMX http://www.edm2.com/0101/emx.html Timur Tabi's Programming Links http://www.edm2.com/common/links.html The un*x to OS/2-EMX Porting FAQ http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~st002279/os2/html/porting.html Towards an UNIX/POSIX to emx-OS/2 Porting Guide http://posix2.sourceforge.net/guide.html Some of these are mentioned in the Posix/2 project which also contains a lot of interesting notes, but again, many references will be out of date. The Posix/2 project has its homepage here:- http://posix2.sourceforge.net/ If anyone can think of others, please add them. -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:56:08 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: gunzip On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 08:55:17PM +0100, Illya Vaes wrote: > ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:20:48 +0100 > >What is the best way of provide a gunzip on OS/2? > >cp -p gzip.exe gunzip.exe > > > >or > > > >echo gzip %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 >gunzip.cmd > > I'd say this should be "gzip -d" (decompress). I'm glad someone is paying attention ;-)... > Illya Vaes > Tcl/Tk OS/2: http://www.vaeshiep.demon.nl/ -- John **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:26:51 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Sources of info On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 10:51:55AM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > If anyone can think of others, please add them. Since we are hoping to comply with certain Unix standards, I think it is important to check out FHS:- Filesystem Hierarchy Standard http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ There is also The Single UNIX Specification website - parts of Version 2 are available here:- http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/ v3 has been released but I haven't found a link to any updated online information. -- John **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:50:57 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: UnixOS2 site On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 07:44:54AM -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > >>I'm also open to suggestions! > > > > > > Zope? > > > > > > Yup... that one readily comes to mind, not only because I can work > pretty well with it, but it also runs directly on OS/2... it's a good > dog-food test. Have you tried running 2.7.0 ? > Jeff > -- > ---------------- > Whatza JamochaMUD? > http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca > > Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik > ----------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 07:44:54 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Re: UnixOS2 site John Poltorak wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Jeff Robinson wrote: > >>Michael Zolk wrote: > > >>>Would it be possible to set this up so that the maintainer of a package can >>>change the contents of the respective page on his own? >>> >>>Michael >> >>This would be the scenario I'd most be in favour of, but would have to >>talk it over some more with Ian (it's his server; and then figure out >>some sort've framework to work within). For now, though I'd accept >>either raw text or complete HTML from any folks that wanted to submit it. >> >>Each time I upload new versions of the page I also upload the PPWizard >>scripts, templates and graphics that I use to build the site so you can >>generate HTML that'll fit the existing "framework". >> >>I'm also open to suggestions! > > > Zope? > > Yup... that one readily comes to mind, not only because I can work pretty well with it, but it also runs directly on OS/2... it's a good dog-food test. Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:21:27 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: autoconf problem I've found a problem which occurs after running Autoconf (v2.59) on Bison, but I don't see how it is related to autoconf. Bison (v1.875) itself builds straight out of the box using the supplied configure script. It also builds after running autoconf first, but does fail during 'make install' because the file stamp-vti in the doc directory gets messed up... For some reason it gets the contents of the environment prepended to it with this resultant error:- Making install in doc make[1]: Entering directory `G:/ux2bs/workdir/bison-1.875/doc' g:/bin/sh /ux2bs/workdir/bison-1.875/config/missing --run makeinfo -I . \ -o bison.info `test -f 'bison.texinfo' || echo './'`bison.texinfo ../version.texi:35: Unknown command `(#)PD'. makeinfo: Removing output file `bison.info' due to errors; use --force to preserve. make[1]: *** [bison.info] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `G:/ux2bs/workdir/bison-1.875/doc' make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 The Makefile itself is identical to the one created without using autoconf. Any ideas on what has happened? Is this a shell problem? -- John **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:34:02 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: no acceptable ld found in $PATH Here is a prime candidate for the FAQ:- What to do when configure says:- no acceptable ld found in $PATH Add LD=ld to environment. This just cropped up again so it does occur with quite a few apps. -- John