Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 00:04:20 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 376 ************************************************** Tuesday 11 May 2004 Number 376 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: ZLIB & minigzip : Dave Yeo" 2 Re: zlib.def : Dave Yeo" 3 Re: ZLIB & minigzip : John Poltorak 4 Mozilla : John Poltorak 5 Re: Mozilla : Sebastian Wittmeier" 6 Re: Mozilla : Steve Wendt 7 Re: ZLIB & minigzip : Dave Yeo" 8 Re: Mozilla : Steven Levine" 9 Re: OOO_1_1_1 : Dave Yeo" 10 weird configure messages : Dave Yeo" 11 Re: weird configure messages : Steve Wendt" 12 Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem : Dave Yeo" 13 Re: weird configure messages : Dave Yeo" 14 Re: OOO_1_1_1 : John Poltorak 15 Re: Mozilla : John Poltorak 16 glibidl : John Poltorak 17 Glib : John Poltorak 18 Re: Mozilla : Sebastian Wittmeier" 19 Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem : John Poltorak 20 Re: Mozilla : John Poltorak 21 Re: Mozilla : Sebastian Wittmeier" 22 Re: Mozilla : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 23 Re: Glib : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 24 Re: Glib : John Poltorak 25 Re: zlib.def : John Poltorak 26 Re: Mozilla : John Poltorak 27 Re: Glib : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 28 Re: Mozilla : Sebastian Wittmeier" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:49:30 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: ZLIB & minigzip On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:43:58 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >Looking at the build of ZLIB, there are a couple of binary executables >created including minigzip. If anyone has a Unix system could you tell me >if these programs actually get installed anywhere? It appears to me that >they are only created for test purposes but do not get installed in >$bindir so there may not be any need to install them in the OS/2 Makefile >for ZLIB... Looking at makefile.in they don't get installed. Spent quite a while yesterday trying to integrate OS/2 into configure and makefile.in without luck. OS/2 is just to different in the way DLLs are created from *nix. Could add an option to makefile.in so make dll would create the dll but I can't see a simple way to integrate it otherwise. Dave **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:57:11 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: zlib.def --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HXI1BA138764=_=_=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:17:15 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:53:45AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: >> On Sun, 9 May 2004 12:11:03 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >gcc: exedefault.def: No such file or directory >> >make: *** [example.exe] Error 1 >> > >> > >> >I can't work out what exedefault.def is supposed to be or where I can find >> >it. >> > >> Woops, here it is. > >NAME WINDOWCOMPAT >STACKSIZE 32768 > > >Can these options be incorporated into LDFLAGS somehow? > Try this makefile.emx. It doesn't use exedefault.def and should create a z.dll that exports ordinals and links by name Dave --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HXI1BA138764=_=_=_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Makefile.emx" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 cHJlZml4ID0gZjovdXNyDQpleGVjX3ByZWZpeCA9IGY6L3Vzcg0KDQpJTkNESVIgPSAkKHByZWZp eCkvaW5jbHVkZQ0KTElCRElSID0gJHtwcmVmaXh9L2xpYg0KRExMRElSID0gJHtwcmVmaXh9L2Rs bA0KQklORElSID0gJHtleGVjX3ByZWZpeH0vYmluDQoNClNUQVRJQ0xJQiA9IHpfcy5hDQpTSEFS RURMSUIgPSB6LmRsbA0KSU1QTElCCT0gei5hDQoNCkNDPWdjYw0KDQpDRkxBR1M9IC1PMiAtbTQ4 NiAtRF9fU1RfTVRfRVJSTk9fXyAtWm10ZCAgLUkuDQoNCkxEID0gJChDQykNCkxERkxBR1M9IC1z IC1MLiAtbHpfcyAtWmJpbi1maWxlcyAtWm10ZA0KDQpBUiA9IGFyDQpBUkZMQUdTID0gY3J1DQoN CkVYRSA9IC5leGUNCg0KVkVSPTEuMi4xDQoNClNIRUxMPXNoDQoNCk9CSlMgPSBhZGxlcjMyLm8g Y29tcHJlc3MubyBjcmMzMi5vIGd6aW8ubyB1bmNvbXByLm8gZGVmbGF0ZS5vIHRyZWVzLm8gXA0K ICAgICAgIHp1dGlsLm8gaW5mbGF0ZS5vIGluZmJhY2subyBpbmZ0cmVlcy5vIGluZmZhc3Qubw0K T0JKQSA9DQoNCiNhbGw6ICQoU1RBVElDTElCKSAkKFNIQVJFRExJQikgJChJTVBMSUIpIGV4YW1w bGUkKGV4ZSkgbWluaWd6aXAgZXhhbXBsZV9kIG1pbmlnemlwX2QNCmFsbDogZXhhbXBsZSQoRVhF KSBtaW5pZ3ppcCQoRVhFKSBleGFtcGxlX2QkKEVYRSkgbWluaWd6aXAkKEVYRSkNCg0KY2hlY2s6 IHRlc3QNCnRlc3Q6IGFsbA0KCUBMRF9MSUJSQVJZX1BBVEg9LjokKExEX0xJQlJBUllfUEFUSCkg OyBleHBvcnQgTERfTElCUkFSWV9QQVRIOyBcDQoJZWNobyBoZWxsbyB3b3JsZCB8IC4vbWluaWd6 aXAuZXhlIHwgLi9taW5pZ3ppcC5leGUgLWQgfHwgXA0KCSAgZWNobyAnCQkqKiogbWluaWd6aXAg dGVzdCBGQUlMRUQgKioqJyA7IFwNCglpZiAuL2V4YW1wbGUuZXhlOyB0aGVuIFwNCgkgIGVjaG8g JwkJKioqIHpsaWIgdGVzdCBPSyAqKionOyBcDQoJZWxzZSBcDQoJICBlY2hvICcJCSoqKiB6bGli IHRlc3QgRkFJTEVEICoqKic7IFwNCglmaQ0KDQokKFNUQVRJQ0xJQik6ICQoT0JKUykgJChPQkpB KQ0KCSQoQVIpICQoQVJGTEFHUykgJEAgJChPQkpTKSAkKE9CSkEpDQoJLUAgKCQoUkFOTElCKSAk QCB8fCB0cnVlKSA+L2Rldi9udWxsIDI+JjENCgllbXhvbWYgLW8gel9zLmxpYiB6X3MuYQ0KDQok KElNUExJQik6ICQoU0hBUkVETElCKQ0KDQokKFNIQVJFRExJQik6ICQoT0JKUykNCgllbXhpbXAg LW8gei5hIHdpbjMyL3psaWIuZGVmDQoJZW14aW1wIC1vIHoubGliIHdpbjMyL3psaWIuZGVmDQoJ JHtDQ30gLXMgLW8gJChTSEFSRURMSUIpICQoT0JKUykgem9zMi5kZWYgLVpkbGwgLVptdGQNCg0K ZXhhbXBsZSQoRVhFKTogZXhhbXBsZS5vICQoU1RBVElDTElCKQ0KCSQoQ0MpICQoQ0ZMQUdTKSAt byAkQC4gZXhhbXBsZS5vICQoTERGTEFHUykNCg0KDQptaW5pZ3ppcCQoRVhFKTogbWluaWd6aXAu byAkKFNUQVRJQ0xJQikNCgkkKENDKSAkKENGTEFHUykgLW8gJEAgbWluaWd6aXAubyAkKExERkxB R1MpDQoNCmV4YW1wbGVfZCQoRVhFKTogbWluaWd6aXAubyAkKFNIQVJFRExJQikNCgkkKExEKSAk KExERkxBR1MpIC1vICRAIGV4YW1wbGUubyAkKExERkxBR1MpDQoNCm1pbmlnemlwX2QkKEVYRSk6 IG1pbmlnemlwLm8gJChTSEFSRURMSUIpDQoJJChMRCkgJChMREZMQUdTKSAtbyAkQCBtaW5pZ3pp cC5vICQoTERGTEFHUykNCg0KaW5zdGFsbDogJChTSEFSRURMSUIpIG1pbmlnemlwLmV4ZQ0KCUBp bnN0YWxsIC1kICQoSU5DRElSKQ0KCUBpbnN0YWxsIC1kICQoTElCRElSKQ0KCUBpbnN0YWxsIC1k ICQoRExMRElSKQ0KCUBpbnN0YWxsIC1kICQoQklORElSKQ0KCWluc3RhbGwgLWMgemxpYi5oIHpj b25mLmggJChJTkNESVIpDQoJaW5zdGFsbCAtYyB6LmEgei5saWIgJChMSUJESVIpDQoJaW5zdGFs bCAtYyAkKFNIQVJFRExJQikgJChETExESVIpDQoJaW5zdGFsbCAtYyBtaW5pZ3ppcC5leGUgJChC SU5ESVIpDQoNCmNsZWFuOg0KCXJtIC1mICoubyAqfiBleGFtcGxlLmV4ZSBtaW5pZ3ppcC5leGUg ZXhhbXBsZV9kLmV4ZSBtaW5pZ3ppcF9kLmV4ZSAqLmEgKi5saWIgKi5kbGwNCg0KIw0KcmVsZWFz ZToNCgkkKE1BS0UpIC1mIE1ha2VmaWxlLmVteCBpbnN0YWxsIGNsZWFuIHByZWZpeD1mOi9yZWxl YXNlL3psaWIgXA0KCQlleGVjX3ByZWZpeD1mOi9yZWxlYXNlL3psaWINCg0K --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HXI1BA138764=_=_=_-- **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:16:03 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ZLIB & minigzip On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:49:30AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:43:58 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >Looking at the build of ZLIB, there are a couple of binary executables > >created including minigzip. If anyone has a Unix system could you tell me > >if these programs actually get installed anywhere? It appears to me that > >they are only created for test purposes but do not get installed in > >$bindir so there may not be any need to install them in the OS/2 Makefile > >for ZLIB... > > Looking at makefile.in they don't get installed. In that case, I don't think we need the really, so we don't need to define $bindir either. > Spent quite a while yesterday trying to integrate OS/2 into configure and makefile.in without luck. OS/2 is just to different in the way DLLs are created from *nix. Could add an option to makefile.in so make dll would create the dll but I can't see a simple way to integrate it otherwise. I spent some time too and it doesn't look easy. This is what I have so far, although I can't figure out how to include a rule for building z.dll:- if test "$gcc" -eq 1 && ($cc -c $cflags $test.c) 2>/dev/null; then CC="$cc" SFLAGS=${CFLAGS-"-fPIC -O3"} CFLAGS="$cflags" case `(uname -s || echo unknown) 2>/dev/null` in Linux | linux | GNU | GNU/*) LDSHARED=${LDSHARED-"$cc -shared -Wl,-soname,libz.so.1"};; CYGWIN* | Cygwin* | cygwin* ) EXE='.exe';; OS/2) EXE='.exe' CFLAGS="-O2 -m486 -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Zmtd -Zomf -I." LDFLAGS="-s -L. -lz -Zbin-files" LIBS=z_s.a SHAREDLIB=z.dll SHAREDLIBV=z.dll SHAREDLIBM=z.dll libdir='/usr/lib' includedir='/usr/include';; [...] esac else Also, I'm not sure whether any of these need changing for OS/2:- AR=ar rc RANLIB=ranlib TAR=tar I would prefer to use the provided configure method because it does the install of the man pages as well as the headers and libs, so I guess we need patches for the OS/2 section in configure, the OS/2 def file and probably a patch to Makefile.in, too. Maybe libz. could be changed to $LIBZ and we could define LIBZ in the OS/2 section of the configure script... > Dave -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 20:58:02 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Mozilla Following the demise of IBM's involvement in developing Mozilla on OS/2, we ought to gear up being able to keep it up to date ourselves. How easy is it incorporate new source code into the OS/2 version? Can anyone post instructions on what is required for building Mozilla on OS/2? -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 23:19:06 +0200 (CEST) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier" Subject: Re: Mozilla On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:58:02 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Following the demise of IBM's involvement in developing Mozilla on OS/2, >we ought to gear up being able to keep it up to date ourselves. > >How easy is it incorporate new source code into the OS/2 version? The most difficult thing is to get patches accepted (even obvious bugfixes sometimes take years to get included into the CVS). Perhaps Mike Kaply can arrange some contacts. Sebastian **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:52:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Wendt Subject: Re: Mozilla On Mon, 10 May 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > Can anyone post instructions on what is required for building Mozilla on > OS/2? http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 18:35:52 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: ZLIB & minigzip On Mon, 10 May 2004 17:16:03 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >> Spent quite a while yesterday trying to integrate OS/2 into configure and makefile.in without luck. OS/2 is just to different in the way DLLs are created from *nix. Could add an option to makefile.in so make dll would create the dll but I can't see a simple way to integrate it otherwise. > >I spent some time too and it doesn't look easy. > >This is what I have so far, although I can't figure out how to include a >rule for building z.dll:- > > >if test "$gcc" -eq 1 && ($cc -c $cflags $test.c) 2>/dev/null; then > CC="$cc" > SFLAGS=${CFLAGS-"-fPIC -O3"} > CFLAGS="$cflags" > case `(uname -s || echo unknown) 2>/dev/null` in > Linux | linux | GNU | GNU/*) LDSHARED=${LDSHARED-"$cc -shared -Wl,-soname,libz.so.1"};; > CYGWIN* | Cygwin* | cygwin* ) > EXE='.exe';; > OS/2) EXE='.exe' > CFLAGS="-O2 -m486 -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Zmtd -Zomf -I." > LDFLAGS="-s -L. -lz -Zbin-files" > LIBS=z_s.a > SHAREDLIB=z.dll > SHAREDLIBV=z.dll > SHAREDLIBM=z.dll > libdir='/usr/lib' > includedir='/usr/include';; > >[...] > > esac >else I came up with OS/2*) shared_ext='.dll' SHAREDLIB=z$shared_ext SHAREDLIBV=z$VER.$shared_ext SHAREDLIBM=z$VER1.$shared_ext SFLAGS=${CFLAGS-"-Zmtd -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__"} CFLAGS=${CFLAGS-"-Zmtd -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__"} LDSHARED="${CC} -s -o $(SHAREDLIBV) $(OBJS) zos2.def -Zdll -Zmtd";; *) LDSHARED=${LDSHARED-"$cc -shared"};; esac else But the show stopper for me is the section that starts if test $shared -eq 1; then echo Checking for shared library support... # we must test in two steps (cc then ld), required at least on SunOS 4.x as if the test doesn't work then only a static lib is built. Unluckily can't build a test dll due to no def file for the test program. Perhaps the easiest would just to bypass the test if building OS/2. > > > >Also, I'm not sure whether any of these need changing for OS/2:- > >AR=ar rc AR=ar cru >RANLIB=ranlib RANLIB=echo >TAR=tar > > >I would prefer to use the provided configure method because it does the >install of the man pages as well as the headers and libs, so I guess we >need patches for the OS/2 section in configure, the OS/2 def file and >probably a patch to Makefile.in, too. Maybe libz. could be changed to >$LIBZ and we could define LIBZ in the OS/2 section of the configure >script... In makefile.in I have tried this SHAREDLIBEMX=z.dll .... dll: $(SHAREDLIB) .... $(SHAREDLIB): $(OBJS) # CFLAGS= -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Zmtd -I. emximp -o z.a win32/zlib.def emximp -o z.lib win32/zlib.def ${CC} -s -o $(SHAREDLIBEMX) $(OBJS) zos2.def -Zdll -Zmtd The problem is that need CFLAGS set to above. Configure will do this if building a shared lib but not a static lib. After changing CFLAGS at near top of makefile make dll builds the dll and import libs and plain make builds a static lib (zlib.a). Dave **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:12:34 -0700 From: "Steven Levine" Subject: Re: Mozilla On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:58:02 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Following the demise of IBM's involvement in developing Mozilla on OS/2, >we ought to gear up being able to keep it up to date ourselves. > >How easy is it incorporate new source code into the OS/2 version? Before going off on an independent journey, I suggest you get in contact with the non-IBM individuals that are currently doing personal builds. A bit of time spent with Google Groups and netscape.public.mozilla.os2 with get you names. One area where unixos2 could definitely help is by maintaining a one stop shop for pulling the various tools needed to build the beast. Another possibly useful task would be hosting personal builds with fixes that have not managed to make it into the build tree. Regards, Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Levine" MR2/ICE 2.41 #10183 Warp4/FP15/14.093c_W4 www.scoug.com irc.webbnet.info irc.fyrelizard.org #scoug (Wed 7pm PST) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:30:17 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: OOO_1_1_1 On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:59:59 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> It would be nice, if you include many small X11 programs in UX2BS. > >I was hoping to do that, that's why I have now included Xprog44.zip in the >baseline toolset, but I haven't found any suitable apps. I'd welcome >any suggestions... Two problems. So many programs depend upon various libs that the libs need building first. eg graphic libs, gtk etc. Gcc 2.8.1 is to old to build many X11 apps. Dave **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 20:39:10 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: weird configure messages Building imlib I see these from configure checking for blumfrub... no checking for buckets_of_erogenous_nym... no checking for buttox... no Dave **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:05:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steve Wendt" Subject: Re: weird configure messages On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:39:10 -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: >Building imlib I see these from configure >checking for blumfrub... no >checking for buckets_of_erogenous_nym... no >checking for buttox... no ;-) ----------- "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 12 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:42:27 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem On Sat, 01 May 2004 14:34:58 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > >Should work now: >http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/autoconf-2_59-r2.zip When building this I keep getting an error in tests/autom4te X:\usr\src\autoconf-2.59\tests>sh autom4te --help autom4te[18]: syntax error: `if' unmatched For the life of me I can't see anything wrong. Dave **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 23:27:41 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: weird configure messages On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:05:56 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wendt wrote: >On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:39:10 -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > >>Building imlib I see these from configure >>checking for blumfrub... no >>checking for buckets_of_erogenous_nym... no >>checking for buttox... no > >;-) What I really need to know is what archives these are in Dave who most likely shouldn't of had those beer tonight **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:52:28 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OOO_1_1_1 On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 07:30:17PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:59:59 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> It would be nice, if you include many small X11 programs in UX2BS. > > > >I was hoping to do that, that's why I have now included Xprog44.zip in the > >baseline toolset, but I haven't found any suitable apps. I'd welcome > >any suggestions... > > Two problems. So many programs depend upon various libs that the libs need building first. eg graphic libs, gtk etc. > Gcc 2.8.1 is to old to build many X11 apps. gcc 2.8.1 is obviously a barrier as far as getting some apps built and I hope to address that problem before too long, but I'd like to establish that I can build X apps with UX2BS so there must be some apps or libs that I can try out currently just to see the principle does, in fact work. > Dave -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:00:43 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Mozilla On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:52:55PM -0700, Steve Wendt wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004, John Poltorak wrote: > > > Can anyone post instructions on what is required for building Mozilla on > > OS/2? > > http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html Thanks for that. It looks like a real hotch potch, and a real barrier to anyone even getting started. I wonder if I can successfully include Mozilla as a build target under UX2BS. If so, then all it would take to build from source would be to run 'build mozilla'. It many be a while before I get to that point though... -- John **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:16:01 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: glibidl To be able to build Mozilla, I need something called glibidl which is apparently a combination of glib and libidl Glib originates from:- http://www.gtk.org/ but I can't figure out where libIDL comes from. Does anyone know? I would like to be able to build both under my standard build environment. -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:47:28 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Glib Does anyone have any advice on building Glib? I've never looked at it before but there seem to be so many different releases of it. Are there any known issues/requirements in trying to get it to build on OS/2? -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:18:04 +0200 (CEST) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier" Subject: Re: Mozilla Mozilla needs gcc 3.2.2, too. Perhaps it is time to add it to UX2BS - it can be installed in parallel to gcc 2.8.1. Sebastian **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:14:25 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:42:27PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Sat, 01 May 2004 14:34:58 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > > >Should work now: > >http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/source/autoconf/autoconf-2_59-r2.zip > > When building this I keep getting an error in tests/autom4te > X:\usr\src\autoconf-2.59\tests>sh autom4te --help > autom4te[18]: syntax error: `if' unmatched I don't get this, although I'm using the GNU version + OS/2 patches. > For the life of me I can't see anything wrong. > Dave > -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:20:49 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Mozilla On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Sebastian Wittmeier wrote: > Mozilla needs gcc 3.2.2, too. Perhaps it is time to add it to UX2BS - > it can be installed in parallel to gcc 2.8.1. How easy is it to keep them seperated? I would prefer to keep 2.8.1 as the default gcc and have a table of apps which require 3.2.2. since 2.8.1 is stable whereas the latest release is still subject to frequent changes. > Sebastian -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:38:40 +0200 (CEST) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier" Subject: Re: Mozilla On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:20:49 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >How easy is it to keep them seperated? gcc 3.2.2 resides in its own directory tree. To build with 3.2.2 I call at echo off call J:\Development\gcc3.2.2\bin\gccenv.cmd set include=J:\Development\gcc3.2.2\include set library_path=%library_path%;. SET CXXMAIN=J:\Ibmcxxo SET PATH=%PATH%;%CXXMAIN%\BIN SET ENDLIBPATH=%ENDLIBPATH%;%CXXMAIN%\DLL make To build with 2.8.1 I call at echo off call I:\unixos2\lib\ux2_env.cmd set library_path=%library_path%;. set c_include_path=%c_include_path%;I:\usr\X11R6\include SET PATH=%PATH% SET ENDLIBPATH=%ENDLIBPATH% make del zap_env.cmd **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Mozilla Sebastian Wittmeier schrieb: > call J:\Development\gcc3.2.2\bin\gccenv.cmd > set include=J:\Development\gcc3.2.2\include > set library_path=%library_path%;. > SET CXXMAIN=J:\Ibmcxxo > SET PATH=%PATH%;%CXXMAIN%\BIN > SET ENDLIBPATH=%ENDLIBPATH%;%CXXMAIN%\DLL > make Doesn't gccenv.cmd set those environment variables anyway? Particularly, your gcc-2.8.1 seems to be in the path already, see > SET PATH=%PATH% so _appending_ %CXXMAIN%\BIN to PATH doesn't help anyway. Regards, Stefan **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:59:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Glib John Poltorak schrieb: > I've never looked at it before but there seem to be so > many different > releases of it. Probably due to building different versions (at least 1.2.3 through 1.2.10) > Are there any known issues/requirements > in trying to get > it to build on OS/2? IIRC, the 1.2.x versions should work out of the box, GTK+-2.x is something completely different, though. Regards, Stefan **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:09:07 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:59:14PM +0200, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > John Poltorak schrieb: > > > I've never looked at it before but there seem to be so > > many different > > releases of it. > > Probably due to building different versions > (at least 1.2.3 through 1.2.10) > > > Are there any known issues/requirements > > in trying to get > > it to build on OS/2? > > IIRC, the 1.2.x versions should work out of > the box, Doesn't seem to, here... This is what I get with v1.2.1:- checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... yes checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a cross-compiler... yes checking whether we are using GNU C... (cached) yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... (cached) yes checking for gcc option to accept ANSI C... none needed checking for a BSD compatible install... /ux2bs/bin/install.exe checking for extra flags to get ANSI library prototypes... configure: error: can not run test program while cross compiling Another thing I noticed is that when I use Posix/2 I get this error:- checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes checking for ld used by GCC... no configure: error: no acceptable ld found in $PATH This error disappears when I take Posix/2 out of the environment. Is that to be expected? > GTK+-2.x is something completely > different, though. Is it best avoided for the time being? > Regards, > Stefan -- John **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:42:10 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: zlib.def On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:57:11AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:17:15 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:53:45AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > >> On Sun, 9 May 2004 12:11:03 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >> > >> >gcc: exedefault.def: No such file or directory > >> >make: *** [example.exe] Error 1 > >> > > >> > > >> >I can't work out what exedefault.def is supposed to be or where I can find > >> >it. > >> > > > >> Woops, here it is. > > > >NAME WINDOWCOMPAT > >STACKSIZE 32768 > > > > > >Can these options be incorporated into LDFLAGS somehow? > > > > Try this makefile.emx. This is what you have now:- CFLAGS= -O2 -m486 -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Zmtd -I. LDFLAGS= -s -L. -lz_s -Zbin-files -Zmtd And this is what you had previously:- CFLAGS=-O2 -m486 -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -Zmtd -Zomf -I. LDFLAGS=exedefault.def -s -L. -lz -Zbin-files So the difference apart from dropping exedefault.def is the removal of -Zomf from CFLAGS and the addition of -Zmtd to LDFLAGS. Is that correct? My eyes tend to glaze over when I see all those options. I just wish I understood how they related to each other. It doesn't use exedefault.def and should create a z.dll that exports ordinals and links by name > Dave -- John **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:57:18 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Mozilla On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 07:12:34PM -0700, Steven Levine wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:58:02 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > Before going off on an independent journey, I suggest you get in contact > with the non-IBM individuals that are currently doing personal builds. A > bit of time spent with Google Groups and netscape.public.mozilla.os2 with > get you names. I guess what we need is a coordinated effort to take over from IBM... > One area where unixos2 could definitely help is by maintaining a one stop > shop for pulling the various tools needed to build the beast. I'm hoping to be able to build Mozilla using UX2BS. Without an easy to use build framework I wouldn't expect many people to have the time or inclination to get involved. What I need to do is put together a simple build script. I find reading pages and pages of instructions to be a bit of a pain and often end up confused anyway. > Regards, > > Steven > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Steven Levine" MR2/ICE 2.41 #10183 Warp4/FP15/14.093c_W4 > www.scoug.com irc.webbnet.info irc.fyrelizard.org #scoug (Wed 7pm PST) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:13:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Glib John Poltorak schrieb: > checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a > cross-compiler... yes Sounds like you need to rerun autoconf(probably 2.13) and update config.*. Regards, Stefan **= Email 28 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:21:54 +0200 (CEST) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier" Subject: Re: Mozilla On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:51:20 +0200 (CEST), Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: >Sebastian Wittmeier schrieb: > >> call J:\Development\gcc3.2.2\bin\gccenv.cmd >> set include=J:\Development\gcc3.2.2\include >> set library_path=%library_path%;. >> SET CXXMAIN=J:\Ibmcxxo >> SET PATH=%PATH%;%CXXMAIN%\BIN >> SET ENDLIBPATH=%ENDLIBPATH%;%CXXMAIN%\DLL >> make > >Doesn't gccenv.cmd set those environment >variables anyway? Particularly, your gcc-2.8.1 >seems to be in the path already, see gcc-2.8.1 is not in my config.sys path, it is set by ux2_env.cmd I remember CXXMAIN was necessary, because gcc 3.2.2 worked better with ilink.exe (instead of link386.exe). and ilink is in my IBMCXXO directory. ux2_env.cmd is part of UX2BS gccenv.cmd is part of gcc 3.2.2 gcc 3.2.2 already contains most of the necessary tools, includes, libs, .... similar to UX2BS >> SET PATH=%PATH% > >so _appending_ %CXXMAIN%\BIN to PATH doesn't >help anyway. > > Regards, > Stefan Sebastian