Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:04:17 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 361 ************************************************** Monday 26 April 2004 Number 361 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external : John Poltorak 2 Re: Re: UnixOS2 site : IanM" 3 Re: Re: UnixOS2 site : John Poltorak 4 Re: Re: UnixOS2 site : IanM" 5 Re: Re: UnixOS2 site : John Poltorak 6 Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem : nickk" 7 Makefile.am for PATCH : John Poltorak 8 Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem : John Poltorak 9 Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 10 Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external : John Poltorak 11 Re: TeX : John Poltorak 12 faqomatic : Dave Yeo" 13 Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 14 ld: unrecognised option `-O' : John Poltorak 15 Re: TeX : Pete Milne 16 Re: TeX : John Poltorak 17 TeX Directory Structure : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:28:04 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:24:48PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > Anyone know what I can do about:- ? > > > > __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external > > Probably something for the FAQ. I agree. > That error message is the > typical result of compiling against Posix/2 headers (or > linking a library compiled with Posix/2) and not including > Posix/2 libraries in the linking step. I don't see how this could be correct since I would expect the same environment to be used throughtout the build of an app. Is there any way to confirm that your suggestion applies? > Regards, > Stefan -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 02:09:25 +1000 (EST) From: "IanM" Subject: Re: Re: UnixOS2 site Hi John, Jeff > >>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. Happy to put Zope on, though I'll ask for help to make sure any holes are closed tight. Cheers IanM http://www.os2site.com/ "Notice how every new version of MS-Windows use's 4 times the amount of RAM than its previous version, and to run it, we then automatically multiply it by 4 again ? **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:48:36 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: UnixOS2 site On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:09:25AM +1000, IanM wrote: > Hi John, Jeff > > > >>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. > > Happy to put Zope on, though I'll ask for help to make sure any > holes are closed tight. Is this going to be on an OS/2 machine? I've managed to get Zope v2.7.0 along with Plone 2.0 running on OS/2. It would be nice to see what we could get up and running for OS/2 users as far as a Zope based site goes. As far as security issues are concerned, I'm not really aware of any, but I haven't looked for them. > Cheers > IanM > http://www.os2site.com/ > > "Notice how every new version of MS-Windows use's 4 times the amount of RAM than its previous version, and to run it, we then automatically multiply it by 4 again ? -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:00:18 +1000 (EST) From: "IanM" Subject: Re: Re: UnixOS2 site Hi John > > Happy to put Zope on, though I'll ask for help to make sure any > > holes are closed tight. > > Is this going to be on an OS/2 machine? Definetly > I've managed to get Zope v2.7.0 along with Plone 2.0 running on OS/2. It > would be nice to see what we could get up and running for OS/2 users as > far as a Zope based site goes. Just remembering Ted's run in with Zope and proxy spammers. I got caught with a similar thing when using the Mail Proxy in Injoy Firewall v3.0 > As far as security issues are concerned, I'm not really aware of any, but > I haven't looked for them. I like to make sure, as its not unusual for me to leave the servers unattended for upto 4 weeks, locked away and humming. Cheers IanM http://www.os2site.com/ There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives. **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 19:26:11 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: UnixOS2 site On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:00:18AM +1000, IanM wrote: > Hi John > > > > Happy to put Zope on, though I'll ask for help to make sure any > > > holes are closed tight. > > > > Is this going to be on an OS/2 machine? > > Definetly > > > I've managed to get Zope v2.7.0 along with Plone 2.0 running on OS/2. It > > would be nice to see what we could get up and running for OS/2 users as > > far as a Zope based site goes. > > Just remembering Ted's run in with Zope and proxy spammers. > I got caught with a similar thing when using the Mail Proxy in Injoy Firewall v3.0 Ah yes, I forgot about opening up Apache to proxy mail spammers - I never did figure that out. Something about enabling mod_proxy or somesuch. I can't immediately recall what the solution was... > > As far as security issues are concerned, I'm not really aware of any, but > > I haven't looked for them. > > I like to make sure, as its not unusual for me to leave the servers > unattended for upto 4 weeks, locked away and humming. Yes - that's the best approach for long uptimes. > Cheers > IanM > http://www.os2site.com/ > > There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives. -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:22:11 +0400 (MSD) From: "nickk" Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:25:56 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> >There seems to be a problem with the OS/2 version of Autoconf which is not >> >present in the original distribution... >> > >> >This is the error I get when running configure on bc v1.06:- >> > >> > >> >checking for lib.h... no >> >checking for an ANSI C-conforming const... yes >> >checking for size_t... yes >> >checking for ptrdiff_t... yes >> >checking for vprintf... yes >> >checking for _doprnt... no >> >checking for isgraph... yes >> >checking for setvbuf... yes >> >./configure[5435]: syntax error: `if' unmatched >> >> I get such errors on almost every configure script generated by autoconf 2.59. > > >Can you give me an example? It usually works for me, but there was an >exception in one case. i.e. libxml, libdvdread, samba. >Have you tried installing the same version direct from GNU? It's >available here:- > >ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/autoconf/autoconf-2.59.tar.gz Not tried yet. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:06:56 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Makefile.am for PATCH I'm attempting to retrofit a Makefile.am into PATCH as I think it would be easier to maintain than patching Makefile.in. Since I don't anything about putting together a Makefile.am from scratch, this could take some time... AIUI the first two things you need in the file are:- bin_PROGRAMS = foo foo_SOURCES = foo.c foo.h xxx.c yyy.c zzz.c For PATCH, I guess the first line should be:- bin_PROGRAMS = patch but I'm not sure about the second... Looking through Makefile.in, these variable are set up:- LIBSRCS = getopt.c getopt1.c malloc.c memchr.c realloc.c rename.c SRCS = addext.c argmatch.c backupfile.c basename.c error.c inp.c maketime.c \ mkdir.c partime.c patch.c pch.c quotearg.c quotesys.c \ rmdir.c util.c version.c xmalloc.c $(LIBSRCS) OBJS = addext$U.$(obj) argmatch$U.$(obj) backupfile$U.$(obj) basename$U.$(obj) error$U.$(obj) inp$U.$(obj) \ maketime.$(obj) partime.$(obj) patch$U.$(obj) pch$U.$(obj) quotearg$U.$(obj) quotesys.$(obj) \ util$U.$(obj) version$U.$(obj) xmalloc$U.$(obj) $(LIBOBJS) HDRS = argmatch.h backupfile.h basename.h common.h error.h getopt.h \ inp.h maketime.h partime.h patchlevel.h pch.h quotearg.h quotesys.h \ util.h version.h xalloc.h so I'm tempted to add $SRCS and $HDRS to patch_sources. If anyone follows any of this, please feel free to jump in any time and point out the error of my ways. -- John **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:50:09 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 01:22:11AM +0400, nickk wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:25:56 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> >checking for setvbuf... yes > >> >./configure[5435]: syntax error: `if' unmatched > >> > >> I get such errors on almost every configure script generated by autoconf 2.59. > > > > > >Can you give me an example? It usually works for me, but there was an > >exception in one case. > > i.e. libxml, libdvdread, samba. I've just given SAMBA v3.0.2a a try using a standard Autoconf v2.58 but didn't get the sort of error you mentioned. It worked perfectly normally but packed in eventually with:- checking how to build auth_builtin... static checking how to build vfs_recycle... shared checking how to build vfs_audit... shared checking how to build vfs_extd_audit... shared checking how to build vfs_netatalk... shared checking how to build vfs_fake_perms... shared checking how to build vfs_default_quota... shared checking how to build vfs_readonly... shared checking how to build vfs_cap... shared Using libraries: LIBS = AUTH_LIBS = checking configure summary... ERROR: No locking available. Running Samba would be unsafe configure: error: summary failure. Aborting config -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:53:00 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:28:04 +0100 > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:24:48PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > Anyone know what I can do about:- ? > > > > > > __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external > > > > Probably something for the FAQ. > > I agree. > > > That error message is the > > typical result of compiling against Posix/2 headers (or > > linking a library compiled with Posix/2) and not including > > Posix/2 libraries in the linking step. > > I don't see how this could be correct since I would expect the same > environment to be used throughtout the build of an app. > > Is there any way to confirm that your suggestion applies? Using "gcc -v" for compiling and linking? You can produce that effect without changing environment, e.g. if you set C(PLUS)_INCLUDE_PATH (and LIBRARY_PATH) as needed for Posix/2 and using plain gcc (instead of p2-gcc) without adding -lcExt... It happens to me every now and then ... Using "nm" (assuming a.out build) to find where __getenv_findEnv is actually being used might shed some light as well... Regards, Stefan **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:59:04 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 10:53:00PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:28:04 +0100 > > > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:24:48PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Anyone know what I can do about:- ? > > > > > > > > __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external > > > > > > Probably something for the FAQ. > > > > I agree. > > > > > That error message is the > > > typical result of compiling against Posix/2 headers (or > > > linking a library compiled with Posix/2) and not including > > > Posix/2 libraries in the linking step. > > > > I don't see how this could be correct since I would expect the same > > environment to be used throughtout the build of an app. > > > > Is there any way to confirm that your suggestion applies? > > Using "gcc -v" for compiling and linking? > You can produce that effect without changing environment, e.g. if you > set C(PLUS)_INCLUDE_PATH (and LIBRARY_PATH) as needed for Posix/2 and > using plain gcc (instead of p2-gcc) without adding -lcExt... > It happens to me every now and then ... > > Using "nm" (assuming a.out build) to find where __getenv_findEnv is > actually being used might shed some light as well... Thinking about it again, in this instance I was using a standard pre-built Makefile rather than going through the autoconf/configure/make route, and what may have happened is that there was a partial build using Posix/2 followed by a second attempt to compile things after removing P/2 without first deleting any programs which did mange to compile successfully. Does this sound plausible? > Regards, > Stefan -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:47:45 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: TeX On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:07:38PM +0100, Pete Milne wrote: > 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. Are you familiar with emTeX? I've dabbled a few times but haven't really known what I was doing with it. I get the feeling that TeX normally comes as a standard package on most Unix distros so it might be an idea to put together a TeX package for UnixOS/2... > Pete -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:13:13 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: faqomatic Another option for a FAQ might be faqomatic (http://sourceforge.net/projects/faqomatic). CGI script which depends on Perl and RCS Dave **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:15:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: __getenv_findEnv : unresolved external John Poltorak schrieb: > Thinking about it again, in this instance I was using a > standard pre-built > Makefile rather than going through the > autoconf/configure/make route, and > what may have happened is that there was a partial build > using Posix/2 > followed by a second attempt to compile things after > removing P/2 without > first deleting any programs which did mange to compile > successfully. > > Does this sound plausible? Absolutely. That would likely result in the error message you've seen. Regards, Stefan **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:30:58 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: ld: unrecognised option `-O' I have no idea why ld is getting invoked with the '-O' option but clearly it appears as if it is. This is an error msg I get when trying to build GNU ed:- emxomfar cru libed.a getopt.obj getopt1.obj regex.obj echo libed.a libed.a gcc -Zcrtdll -Zmt -s -Zlinker /exepack:2 -Zlinker /pmtype:vio -o ed buf.obj glbl.obj io.obj main.obj re.obj signal.obj sub.obj undo.obj version.obj libed.a ld: unrecognized option `-O' I don't see any reference to '-O'. -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:56:31 +0100 From: Pete Milne Subject: Re: TeX John Poltorak wrote: >On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:07:38PM +0100, Pete Milne wrote: > > >>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. >> >> > >Are you familiar with emTeX? I've dabbled a few times but haven't really >known what I was doing with it. > >I get the feeling that TeX normally comes as a standard package on most >Unix distros so it might be an idea to put together a TeX package for >UnixOS/2... > > > > >>Pete >> >> > > > > I use EmTeX a lot to produce teaching materials. I use the original version with the non-standard directory structure and have AMSTeX and other packages installed and working ok. However, I can't produce pdf output until I change to a TDS-compliant version, which I intend to do this summer. (I can't risk disruption at the moment!) I will probably switch to VTeX, which is a free-for-personal-use commercial distribution, which probably makes it unsuitable for UnixOS/2. EmTeXTDS might be the way to go for UnixOS/2. TeX may seem a bit arcane in this word-processing age, but within the scientific community it's unequalled! Pete **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:29:45 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: TeX On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:56:31AM +0100, Pete Milne wrote: > >Are you familiar with emTeX? I've dabbled a few times but haven't really > >known what I was doing with it. > > > >I get the feeling that TeX normally comes as a standard package on most > >Unix distros so it might be an idea to put together a TeX package for > >UnixOS/2... > > > > > > > > > >>Pete > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > I use EmTeX a lot to produce teaching materials. I use the original > version with the non-standard directory structure and have AMSTeX and > other packages installed and working ok. However, I can't produce pdf > output until I change to a TDS-compliant version, which I intend to do > this summer. (I can't risk disruption at the moment!) I will probably > switch to VTeX, which is a free-for-personal-use commercial > distribution, which probably makes it unsuitable for UnixOS/2. EmTeXTDS > might be the way to go for UnixOS/2. > > TeX may seem a bit arcane in this word-processing age, but within the > scientific community it's unequalled! I've installed emTeX a couple of times and run a few samples through it but have never been confident that I had installed it correctly, although was quite impressed what could be done with a free program like this. I'd like to try and create a simple install process rather than having to follow the installation guide, which to my mind involves some pre-requisite knowledge of how TeX itself works... I've just downloaded it and will try and put together an install script although I'm not sure where emTeXTDS requires the original archives to install from. > Pete > -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:38:20 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: TeX Directory Structure I've just found a document:- ftp://ftp.dante.de/tex-archive/tds/index.html which explains a proposed directory structure for TeX. If this was to be used in UnixOS/2, where should texmf go? Should we have /usr/local/share/texmf ? Anyone have a handy Unix system with TeX installed? -- John