Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 00:04:17 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 373 ************************************************** Saturday 08 May 2004 Number 373 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: distcc : Dave Yeo" 2 Re: distcc : John Poltorak 3 OpenSSH : John Poltorak 4 Re: distcc : Dave Yeo" 5 Re: OOO_1_1_1 : Alex Newman" 6 Re: OOO_1_1_1 : John Poltorak 7 Re: distcc : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 08:19:40 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: distcc On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:41:50 +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > >> > AFAIK, Innotek's changes have not been >> > integrated >> > into standard gcc distribution, or have they? >> >> I'm bot aware that distcc has any specific requirements in gcc? > >>From had I read on this mailing list, I had the impression that >recompiling gcc with specific extensions/settings is part of distcc >compilation, but that probably was an error on my part, so ignore >that question... Its sopposed to work with any C compiler though if cross platform the C compilers need to set up for cross compiling. What it does need is a make that supports -j for cuncurrent compiling Dave **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 17:28:19 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: distcc On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 08:19:40AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:41:50 +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > > Hi, > > > >> > AFAIK, Innotek's changes have not been > >> > integrated > >> > into standard gcc distribution, or have they? > >> > >> I'm bot aware that distcc has any specific requirements in gcc? > > > >>From had I read on this mailing list, I had the impression that > >recompiling gcc with specific extensions/settings is part of distcc > >compilation, but that probably was an error on my part, so ignore > >that question... > > Its sopposed to work with any C compiler though if cross platform the C compilers need to set up for cross compiling. > What it does need is a make that supports -j for cuncurrent compiling I've manage to compile dsitccd - the server, but it simply goes straight back to the command run when run, so I'm not sure what to do next. > Dave > -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 23:00:39 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: OpenSSH If anyone has managed to get sshd from OpenSSH up and running, I'd like some help... I'm not sure which keys are required by sshd, how they are created and where they should be located. The instructions appear to be aimed at an expert user of sshd, which I certainly am not. -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 21:24:47 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: distcc On Fri, 7 May 2004 17:28:19 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >I've manage to compile dsitccd - the server, but it simply goes straight >back to the command run when run, so I'm not sure what to do next. Hmm, you've got further then me. Have you tried running make maintainer-check ? For using over sockets you are sopposed to start it up as so distccd --daemon Anyways its all in INSTALL There may need to be OS/2 specific code added, most likely for execing an application. One thing IIRC you said you used -Zomf. This won't work as distcc forks and OMF builds do not allow forking Dave **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 16:59:50 +1000 (EST) From: "Alex Newman" Subject: Re: OOO_1_1_1 On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:21:40 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:02:57AM +0200, Sebastian Wittmeier wrote: > > On Wed, 5 May 2004 18:57:51 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >If anyone is interested in trying to build Open Office can we agree an a > > >release version? > > > > > >I suggest OOO_1_1_1:- > > > > > >http://ooo.ximian.com/packages/OOO_1_1_1/OOO_1_1_1.tar.bz2 > > > > cool, parts of the source still have German comments :-) > > You must know where to look, I guess. This archive is massive! > > Any signs of residual OS/2 support? > > What strikes me is the number of seperate open source apps included in the > archive, a number of which, such as berkeleydb, dmake, expat, jpeg, zlib > etc are already known to work on OS/2. > > The problem is knowing where to start... Are you aiming to build 'it' as a PM app (windoze diffs(?)), or as an Xfree86 app? Alex. **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 11:44:36 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OOO_1_1_1 On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 04:59:50PM +1000, Alex Newman wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:21:40 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > What strikes me is the number of seperate open source apps included in the > > archive, a number of which, such as berkeleydb, dmake, expat, jpeg, zlib > > etc are already known to work on OS/2. > > > > The problem is knowing where to start... > > Are you aiming to build 'it' as a PM app (windoze diffs(?)), or as an Xfree86 app? Whichever is easiest, although it would be nice to end up with a PM app eventually. > Alex. -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 11:56:46 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: distcc On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:24:47PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Fri, 7 May 2004 17:28:19 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >I've manage to compile dsitccd - the server, but it simply goes straight > >back to the command run when run, so I'm not sure what to do next. > > Hmm, you've got further then me. All I did was add distcc to build.table under UX2BS and included the CFLAGS I mentioned previously, then ran 'build distcc' > Have you tried running make maintainer-check ? No. What does it do? > For using over sockets you are sopposed to start it up as so > distccd --daemon Yes, I did that and it promptly exited without any msgs. > Anyways its all in INSTALL > There may need to be OS/2 specific code added, most likely for execing an application. That wouldn't surprise me, but I'll have to wait for someone else to come up with the correct code... > One thing IIRC you > said you used -Zomf. This won't work as distcc forks and OMF builds do not allow forking I used -Zomf to make it compile, which it does as a result. I'm not sure of the implications of fork not working. Does it mean the app won't work at all? What does it do instead of fork? > Dave -- John