Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 00:04:21 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 377 ************************************************** Wednesday 12 May 2004 Number 377 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Glib : John Poltorak 2 Re: Glib : Sebastian Wittmeier" 3 Re: Glib : John Poltorak 4 Re: Glib : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 5 Re: Glib : John Poltorak 6 Re: weird configure messages : Steve Wendt" 7 Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem : Andreas Buening 8 Building Mozilla : John Poltorak 9 Re: weird configure messages : Dave Yeo" 10 Re: Glib : Dave Yeo" 11 Re: glibidl : Dave Yeo" 12 Re: OOO_1_1_1 : Dave Yeo" 13 Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem : Dave Yeo" 14 Re: Glib : Dave Yeo" 15 Re: zlib.def : Dave Yeo" 16 Re: Building Mozilla : Dave Yeo" 17 Re: Glib : Dave Yeo" 18 Re: Mozilla : Dave Yeo" 19 Re: glibidl : John Poltorak 20 Re: Building Mozilla : John Poltorak 21 Re: OOO_1_1_1 : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:49:19 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:13:56PM +0200, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > 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.*. I always start with the latest autoconf (v2.59) by default, but your suggestion to use 2.13 solved the problem. Now it says:- checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a cross-compiler... no This leaves me rather confused since I am still using the same compiler, yet AC213 says no and AC259 says yes. So if anyone asks me if I am using a cross-compiler, how can I tell? Whilst using AC213, I get a lot ow warnings saying:- configure.in:174: warning: AC_TRY_RUN called without default to allow cross compiling configure.in:175: warning: AC_TRY_RUN called without default to allow cross compiling configure.in:198: warning: AC_TRY_RUN called without default to allow cross compiling I guess they can be ignored. The Makefile builds OK and a number of programs get compiled before this error:- g:/bin/sh ./libtool --mode=link gcc -Wall -o libglib.la -rpath /usr/local/lib -version-info 0:1:0 -release 1.2 garray.lo gcache.lo gcompletion.lo gdataset.lo gdate.lo gerror.lo ghash.lo ghook.lo giochannel.lo giounix.lo glist.lo gmain.lo gmem.lo gmessages.lo gmutex.lo gnode.lo gprimes.lo grel.lo gscanner.lo gslist.lo gstrfuncs.lo gstring.lo gtimer.lo gtree.lo gutils.lo libtool: link: warning: undefined symbols not allowed in i386-pc-os2-emx shared libraries rm -fr .libs/libglib.la .libs/glib.* .libs/glib-1.2.* ar cru .libs/glib.a garray.o gcache.o gcompletion.o gdataset.o gdate.o gerror.o ghash.o ghook.o giochannel.o giounix.o glist.o gmain.o gmem.o gmessages.o gmutex.o gnode.o gprimes.o grel.o gscanner.o gslist.o gstrfuncs.o gstring.o gtimer.o gtree.o gutils.o ar: : No such file or directory make[2]: *** [libglib.la] Error 1 > Regards, > Stefan -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:59:07 +0200 (CEST) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier" Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:09:07 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >configure: error: no acceptable ld found in $PATH ld=ld.exe Sebastian **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:05:34 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:59:07PM +0200, Sebastian Wittmeier wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:09:07 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >configure: error: no acceptable ld found in $PATH > > ld=ld.exe Yes, I'm aware of this. I was just commenting that it was only required while using Posix/2... > Sebastian -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:23:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Glib John Poltorak schrieb: > I always start with the latest autoconf (v2.59) by > default, but your > suggestion to use 2.13 solved the problem. Old configure scripts tend to be incompatible with new autoconf versions ... :-( > Now it says:- > > checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a > cross-compiler... no Better. > This leaves me rather confused since I am > still using the > same compiler, > yet AC213 says no and AC259 says yes. Some error in naming the executable in the case of ac-2.59, probably. > So if anyone asks me if I am using a > cross-compiler, how can I tell? Generally speaking: You are _not_ cross compiling. (That means things like compiling for a PDA on your Desktop or compiling for OS/2 on a Sparc workstation or vice versa.) > configure.in:198: warning: AC_TRY_RUN called without > default to allow cross compiling No idea, what that is about... > g:/bin/sh ./libtool Arghh! "configure --disable-shared" and using dllar to create the DLL(s) afterwards should help. Stefan **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:03:30 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:23:52PM +0200, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > g:/bin/sh ./libtool > > Arghh! > "configure --disable-shared" and using dllar > to create the DLL(s) afterwards should help. Where can I grab dllar? I looked through my archives and saw some mention of a dllar.sh you were working on. Is that avilable for download? > Stefan -- John **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:27:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steve Wendt" Subject: Re: weird configure messages On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:27:41 -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 They look like jokes to me - or are they really requirements??? ----------- "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 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:37:21 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem 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 Should not happen. What did you do and which messages did you get (2>&1 | tee outputfile)? Bye, Andreas **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:28:37 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Building Mozilla I thought I'd have a preliminary look at building Mozilla and after skimming through:- http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html I thought it would be simpler to use a snapshot release rather than using CVS, so I picked this archive:- ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/0.8/firefox-source-0.8.tar.bz2 Rather than setting my environment according to the docs I prefer to see how far I can get with my existing environment, which is tried and tested. It seems as though the first objective is to build to build .mozconfig although looking through the mozilla directory there is a very recent ..mozconfig.mk so that may have been created when running:- make -f client.mk pull_all which I've realised I didn't need to run. It isn't at all clear to me what I should have in .mozconfig. Do I just copy what is *strongly recommended*? ie:- # sh # Build configuration script # # See http://www.mozilla.org/build/unix.html for build instructions. # # Options for client.mk. mk_add_options MOZ_OBJDIR= at TOPSRCDIR at /obj # Options for 'configure' (same as command-line options). #ac_add_options --disable-tests #ac_add_options --enable-optimize #ac_add_options --disable-debug ac_add_options --enable-crypto Next step is to delete three configure scripts:- rm mozilla/configure rm mozilla/nsprpub/configure rm mozilla/directory/c-sdk/configure and then rebuild them using:- bash autoconf Can't I use my reliable sh from PDKSH ? And do I need to install yet another autoconf? Won't Thomas Dickey's patched version of 2.13 be sufficient? Once that is resolved, I should be able to proceed with:- make -f client.mk build Sounds simple doesn't it? -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 19:03:49 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: weird configure messages On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:27:23 -0700 (PDT), Steve Wendt wrote: >On Mon, 10 May 2004 23:27:41 -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 > >They look like jokes to me - or are they really requirements??? Jokes I believe, I was just carrying it further. Dave **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:46:09 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:47:28 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >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? IIRC there are problems with the thread area. Henry built 1.2.1 with a custom makefile and I don't know about other fixes. Of course there is most likely the problem that libtool will only create a static.lib Dave **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:48:55 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: glibidl On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:16:01 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >but I can't figure out where libIDL comes from. Does anyone know? Gnome? http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/libIDL/ or here? http://andrewtv.org/libIDL/index.jsp Dave **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:54:19 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: OOO_1_1_1 On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:52:28 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >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. Well you could try XPenguins. Cute little penguins on your screen, my son loves it http://xpenguins.seul.org/ Dave **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:45:45 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Autoconf 2.59 problem On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:37:21 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: >> >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 > >Should not happen. What did you do and which messages did >you get (2>&1 | tee outputfile)? Set EMXSHELL=ksh set ac_executable_extensions=".exe" sh configure --prefix=/usr Configure seemed to run fine except it thought my Emacs was to old. ( I tried in a KSH shell and it didn't mind my Emacs but I ended up with the same error) ran make 2>&1 | tee make.log and ended up with the unmatched if error. See attached log Also CDing into tests and running ksh autom4te --help creates the same error. Update the error only occurs with KSH. Both Ash and Bash display the help screen. Ash crashed in configure. Bash finished configure and make make install worked fine. Thought I had the newest ksh. I think its the same as you mention in the readme.os2 though Ilyas site seems to be gone ksh.exe ³ 208900³02-01-02³ 2:59a Dave ps didn't bother posting the make.log. Its here if you'd like to see it **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:56:22 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:09:07 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >> GTK+-2.x is something completely >> different, though. > > >Is it best avoided for the time being? > > If you want to build GTK stick with gtk-1.2.x for now as these have been ported. Platon is sopposed to be porting gtk 2.X now Dave **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:56:07 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: zlib.def On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:42:10 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >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? Correct, also no -Zomf in this ${CC} -s -o $(SHAREDLIB) $(OBJS) zos2.def -Zdll -Zmtd Basically not doing an OMF build. -Zmtd should of been in LDFLAGS to begin with. > >My eyes tend to glaze over when I see all those options. I just wish I >understood how they related to each other. > Dave **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:57:21 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Building Mozilla On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:28:37 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >I thought I'd have a preliminary look at building Mozilla and after >skimming through:- > >http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html > >I thought it would be simpler to use a snapshot release rather than using >CVS, so I picked this archive:- > >ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/0.8/firefox-source-0.8.tar.bz2 Warning, if you decide to go to CVS start over. The snapshots don't seem to transform into CVS on OS/2 > > >Rather than setting my environment according to the docs I prefer to see >how far I can get with my existing environment, which is tried and tested. >It seems as though the first objective is to build to build .mozconfig >although looking through the mozilla directory there is a very recent >.mozconfig.mk so that may have been created when running:- > >make -f client.mk pull_all > >which I've realised I didn't need to run. > > >It isn't at all clear to me what I should have in .mozconfig. Do I just >copy what is *strongly recommended*? ie:- > > ># sh ># Build configuration script ># ># See http://www.mozilla.org/build/unix.html for build instructions. ># > ># Options for client.mk. >mk_add_options MOZ_OBJDIR= at TOPSRCDIR at /obj > ># Options for 'configure' (same as command-line options). >#ac_add_options --disable-tests >#ac_add_options --enable-optimize >#ac_add_options --disable-debug >ac_add_options --enable-crypto Yes, thats a good start. > >Next step is to delete three configure scripts:- > >rm mozilla/configure >rm mozilla/nsprpub/configure >rm mozilla/directory/c-sdk/configure > > >and then rebuild them using:- > >bash autoconf Its been awhile since I've tried building but around 1.4 you had to use autoconf 2.13 and most likely still do > > > >Can't I use my reliable sh from PDKSH ? Should be able to. They did use Bash and now use Ash as it is much faster > >And do I need to install yet another autoconf? Won't Thomas Dickey's >patched version of 2.13 be sufficient? See above > > >Once that is resolved, I should be able to proceed with:- > >make -f client.mk build > > >Sounds simple doesn't it? Let us know what happens. I spent a lot of time trying to build Mozilla and never succeeded. Dave **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:55:48 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Glib On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:49:19 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >I always start with the latest autoconf (v2.59) by default, but your >suggestion to use 2.13 solved the problem. Now it says:- > >checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a cross-compiler... no > >This leaves me rather confused since I am still using the same compiler, >yet AC213 says no and AC259 says yes. > >So if anyone asks me if I am using a cross-compiler, how can I tell? The compiler is not producing executables that run. Often this is due to the lack of .exe in the program name. Dave **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:56:41 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Mozilla On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:20:49 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >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. > > As others have mentioned it is easy to keep them seperate. The big problem is incompatibilities that can show up when using DLLs created with one by the other. Sometimes they are easy to fix other times not. One big show stopper is X11. Apps built with 3.2.2 can't get the display from X11.DLL. Another problem with 3.2.2 is select() support, it uses OS/2 style select() instead of bsd style select(). IIRC Knut has fixed this to the point where select() can be changed to bsdselect(). I'd still like to see 2.8.1 replaced by 3.0.3 (as thats what Frank uses to build XFree86) or 3.2.1 Dave **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:10:33 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: glibidl On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:48:55PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:16:01 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >but I can't figure out where libIDL comes from. Does anyone know? > > Gnome? > http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/libIDL/ > or here? > http://andrewtv.org/libIDL/index.jsp I found it here:- http://andrewtv.org/libIDL/libIDL-0.6.8.tar.gz but it won't build unless glib is present... > Dave -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:23:50 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building Mozilla On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:57:21PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:28:37 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >I thought it would be simpler to use a snapshot release rather than using > >CVS, so I picked this archive:- > > > >ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/0.8/firefox-source-0.8.tar.bz2 > > Warning, if you decide to go to CVS start over. The snapshots don't > seem to transform into CVS on OS/2 I guess that problem can wait for the time being. I was wondering if, for a first attempt, I should maybe start off with quite an old release rather than something so recent... > ># sh > ># Build configuration script > ># > ># See http://www.mozilla.org/build/unix.html for build instructions. > ># > > > ># Options for client.mk. > >mk_add_options MOZ_OBJDIR= at TOPSRCDIR at /obj > > > ># Options for 'configure' (same as command-line options). > >#ac_add_options --disable-tests > >#ac_add_options --enable-optimize > >#ac_add_options --disable-debug > >ac_add_options --enable-crypto > > Yes, thats a good start. OK, I'll start with that. > >and then rebuild them using:- > > > >bash autoconf > > Its been awhile since I've tried building but around 1.4 you had to use > autoconf 2.13 and most likely still do > >Can't I use my reliable sh from PDKSH ? > > Should be able to. They did use Bash and now use Ash as it is much > faster Bash is monstrously huge. I'm not surprised a speedup is experience when it is replaced, but I can't get ash to work for me at all. > >And do I need to install yet another autoconf? Won't Thomas Dickey's > >patched version of 2.13 be sufficient? > > See above I guess I need to compare the two different versions of AC213. It would be nice to have just one. I already use three different versions of autoconf in UX2BS which is bad enough but two different versions of the same version is getting a bit too much to handle. > > > > > >Once that is resolved, I should be able to proceed with:- > > > >make -f client.mk build > > > > > >Sounds simple doesn't it? > > > Let us know what happens. I spent a lot of time trying to build Mozilla > and never succeeded. If you didn't manage it, I guess I should give up now :-)... > Dave -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:39:15 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OOO_1_1_1 On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:54:19PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:52:28 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >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. > > Well you could try XPenguins. Thanks for the suggestion. I managed to get it built eventually. > Cute little penguins on your screen, my son loves it It made me smile :-)... As far a building it goes, I found that running autoconf 2.59 messed things up because configure couldn't find one of the required Xlibs. Running the configure script just as it came built everything and installed it, but I was left with having to run emxbind manually to create an executable which would run on OS/2, so I'm wondering what the best way of automating the whole preocess is. Maybe by running Autoconf 2.13... How would I go about adding Xpenguins into one of Blackbox's popup menus? Could it be done as part of the install? > http://xpenguins.seul.org/ > Dave -- John