Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:04:18 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 424 ************************************************** Thursday 21 October 2004 Number 424 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Henry Sobotka 2 Re: Posix/2 status : Bart van Leeuwen" 3 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Neil Waldhauer" 4 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 5 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : T.Sikora" 6 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 7 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 8 Re: Posix/2 status : John Poltorak 9 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Dave Yeo" 10 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Henry Sobotka 11 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Dave Yeo" 12 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 13 Re: Posix/2 status : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 14 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 15 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Henry Sobotka 16 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 17 ECHO is on. : John Poltorak 18 Re: ECHO is on. : John Poltorak 19 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Henry Sobotka 20 Re: ECHO is on. : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 21 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Jeff Robinson 22 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Dave Yeo" 23 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Dave Yeo" 24 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Dave Yeo" 25 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 26 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 27 CLAM AntiVirus software : John Poltorak 28 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 29 GLIB/LIBIDL : John Poltorak 30 Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions : John Poltorak 31 Re: GLIB/LIBIDL : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:19:01 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions The official build instructions at www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/ contain links to all the tools. The ones you found may or may not be outdated. Tools and versions other than the specified ones might work, but if you want to mess around with the toolkit, start by following the current instructions to the letter and see if you get a successful build; then try substitute tools one at a time because, if a break occurs, you'll know where the problem's coming from. h~ **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:25:22 +0200 From: "Bart van Leeuwen" Subject: Re: Posix/2 status I think Innoteks LIBC is slowly accomplishing what posix was intended for. more and more applications seem to compile right out off the box with innotek GCC With Regards Bart van Leeuwen PMPDF a netlabs project http://pmpdf.netlabs.org **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:40:04 -0700 From: "Neil Waldhauer" Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:43:00 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > There are some Warpzilla Build Instructions here:- > > http://os2ports.com/ftp/incoming/moz-build-os2.txt > I don't see the instructions at this URL. I've tried to build Mozilla a few times, but I seem to run into problems. A lot of the tools aren't that familiar to me. I've lagged way behind in tools, because I work for OS/2-using companies. (hint: they all use the IBM C-Set++ compiler) These are the instructions I've tried I failed to get past the autoconf of glib and libidl. I'm ready to try again. If you get Mozilla to build, I'd like to try again with your environment. Neil -- Neil Waldhauer, neil at blondeguy.com Laughter is the sun that drives winter from the human face. **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:45:04 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 10:19:01AM -0400, Henry Sobotka wrote: > The official build instructions at www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/ contain > links to all the tools. The ones you found may or may not be outdated. > Tools and versions other than the specified ones might work, but if you > want to mess around with the toolkit, start by following the current > instructions to the letter and see if you get a successful build; then > try substitute tools one at a time because, if a break occurs, you'll > know where the problem's coming from. I've been looking at the build instructions here:- http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html and wondered what would need to be changed under 'Build it' Step 2 when using a tarball instead of CVS... I've grabbed the tarball, extracted it and then cd mozilla. Is the next step to run configure or even autoconf? > h~ -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:11:44 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions Neil Waldhauer wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:43:00 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >>There are some Warpzilla Build Instructions here:- >> >>http://os2ports.com/ftp/incoming/moz-build-os2.txt >> > > > I don't see the instructions at this URL. I've tried to build Mozilla a few > times, but I seem to run into problems. A lot of the tools aren't that familiar > to me. I've lagged way behind in tools, because I work for OS/2-using > companies. (hint: they all use the IBM C-Set++ compiler) > > These are the instructions I've tried > > > I failed to get past the autoconf of glib and libidl. > > I'm ready to try again. If you get Mozilla to build, I'd like to try again with > your environment. > > Neil I just updated it. It's there now. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:51:29 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 07:40:04AM -0700, Neil Waldhauer wrote: > These are the instructions I've tried > > > I failed to get past the autoconf of glib and libidl. > > I'm ready to try again. If you get Mozilla to build, I'd like to try again with > your environment. My aim is to get it to build under UX2BS so that all you need to do is run 'build mozilla' and it should take care of the rest. I don't expect to be able to do this any time soon, but it should work in principle. > Neil > -- > Neil Waldhauer, neil at blondeguy.com > > Laughter is the sun that drives winter from the human face. -- John **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:00:33 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions Hi, > Before doing so, I'd like to know if some of the tools are strictly > necessary. It probably depends on the tool... > > Ash is the suggested shell, but I have found the latest pdksh to work > perfectly in all the builds I've tried. Is there any reason why I can't > use it? I'd suppose pdksh is going to be fine as well, but ash is supposed to be faster... > Make v3.81 is stated as a requirement. Is 3.79 not good enough? My first attempt at building gcc-3.4 on Solaris (some time ago), was a fiasco because the make I used was to old, so I'd be very careful with this ... > Sed v4.0.5 - ditto - v3.02 Same here. Personally, I'd suggest to avoid any sed v3.something. > Ilink - what is the source of this? A couple of months ago, I found a suitable version for download via the mozilla pages. > RC ditto > > Winico ditto Probably the same applies to those... Regards, Stefan **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:14:52 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Posix/2 status On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:25:22PM +0200, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: > > I think Innoteks LIBC is slowly accomplishing what posix was intended for. > > more and more applications seem to compile right out off the box with > innotek GCC I'd be interested in any you have had success with... > With Regards > Bart van Leeuwen > > PMPDF a netlabs project > http://pmpdf.netlabs.org -- John **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:23:46 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:51:29 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> I'm ready to try again. If you get Mozilla to build, I'd like to try again with >> your environment. > >My aim is to get it to build under UX2BS so that all you need to do is run >'build mozilla' and it should take care of the rest. > >I don't expect to be able to do this any time soon, but it should work in >principle. You are going to have to use Innoteks GCC to build it Dave **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:30:11 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions John Poltorak wrote: > > I've been looking at the build instructions here:- > > http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html > > and wondered what would need to be changed under 'Build it' Step 2 when > using a tarball instead of CVS... > > I've grabbed the tarball, extracted it and then cd mozilla. Step 2 is equivalent to grabbing the tarball so you can skip it. > Is the next step to run configure or even autoconf? See Step 4 but don't skip Step 3. h~ **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:40:07 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:45:04 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >I've been looking at the build instructions here:- > >http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gccsetup.html > >and wondered what would need to be changed under 'Build it' Step 2 when >using a tarball instead of CVS... > >I've grabbed the tarball, extracted it and then cd mozilla. > >Is the next step to run configure or even autoconf? > With the tarball IIRC there is a REXX cmd file or two that need to be converted to DOSish line endings. First you need a .mozconfig file setup, preferrably building in an obj directory then just do make -f client.mk build. The configure script is very geared to the enviroment that IBM has setup, eg the MOZTOOLS enviromental variable needs to be set. I'd agree with Henry to start out with exactly IBMs tool setup, build it, then start changing things. I had a lot of weird errors just from using the wrong autoconf 2.13 as an example. Ash builds Mozilla twice as fast as bash. Ash has a bug which eats the first %PATH% entry so your PATH should start with something like \foo. Dave ps here on a 300 mhz machine the build takes about 11 hours **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:34:51 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:23:46AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:51:29 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> I'm ready to try again. If you get Mozilla to build, I'd like to try again with > >> your environment. > > > >My aim is to get it to build under UX2BS so that all you need to do is run > >'build mozilla' and it should take care of the rest. > > > >I don't expect to be able to do this any time soon, but it should work in > >principle. > > You are going to have to use Innoteks GCC to build it Yes, I'll have to gear up to incorporating GCC 3.3.4 or whatever gets released. I want to make sure I have the rest of the environment set up and a way of toggling between different compilers. > Dave -- John **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:49:39 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Posix/2 status Hi, > What is the status of Posix/2? > > Is it being incorporated into Innotek's GCC? That's what I'm seeing: Lot's of BSD functions have been included in Innotek's libc (often based on newer version than what we have in Posix/2). If there's something missing, it should be easy to submit a patch adding it to Knut. Regards, Stefan **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:08:14 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:40:07AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:45:04 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > With the tarball IIRC there is a REXX cmd file or two that need to be converted to DOSish line endings. > First you need a .mozconfig file setup, preferrably building in an obj directory then just do > make -f client.mk build. > The configure script is very geared to the enviroment that IBM has setup, eg the MOZTOOLS enviromental variable needs to be set. > I'd agree with Henry to start out with exactly IBMs tool setup, build it, then start changing things. > I had a lot of weird errors just from using the wrong autoconf 2.13 as an example. > Ash builds Mozilla twice as fast as bash. Ash has a bug which eats the first %PATH% entry so your PATH should start with something like \foo. Won't it build using the latest Autoconf (v2.59 for OS/2) ? I'd also like to use pdksh which I've been using for a couple of years with a lot of success - I dropped bash as quickly as I could. > Dave > ps here on a 300 mhz machine the build takes about 11 hours Leaving it running overnight shouldn't be a problem... -- John **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:36:08 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions John Poltorak wrote: > > Won't it build using the latest Autoconf (v2.59 for OS/2) ? The version specified has been tweaked for Warpzilla over the years. Not using the one referenced by the link or a newer one is likely to produce weird errors such as Dave mentioned. > I'd also like to use pdksh which I've been using for a couple of years > with a lot of success - I dropped bash as quickly as I could. As I said, first follow the instructions to the letter and see if you get a build. That way if you run into problems, people who have built can usually help because most failures are known. Afterwards try other tools if you want, one at a time. h~ **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:05:12 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:36:08PM -0400, Henry Sobotka wrote: > > I'd also like to use pdksh which I've been using for a couple of years > > with a lot of success - I dropped bash as quickly as I could. > > As I said, first follow the instructions to the letter and see if you > get a build. That way if you run into problems, people who have built > can usually help because most failures are known. Afterwards try other > tools if you want, one at a time. Is Moztools on Hobbes a bundle of all the tools I need? > h~ -- John **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:31:40 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: ECHO is on. I'm trying to figure out why I get different results when building two different versions of an app using the same build script. In the first (successfull) instance I get this msg output near the end:- copying and adjusting utilities/decompilezpy.py -> G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-scripts Zope built. Next, do 'make install' (or 'make instance' to run a Zope instance directly from the build directory). "G:\USR\BIN\PYTHON.EXE" "G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/setup.py" \ build --build-base="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3" --build-lib="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-lib" --build-scripts="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-scripts" --build-temp="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-temp" running build running build_py running build_ext running build running build_py running build running build_scripts "G:\USR\BIN\PYTHON.EXE" "G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/setup.py" install \ --prefix="/usr/local/Zope" --build-base="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3" --build-lib="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-lib" --build-scripts="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-scripts" --build-temp="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-temp" running install running build running build_py running build_ext running install_lib copying G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.0/build-base/python-2.3/build-lib/AccessControl/cAccessC.pyd -> /usr/local/Zope/lib/python/AccessControl In the second instance it ends in failure with a slightly different outcome:- copying and adjusting utilities/decompilezpy.py -> G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3/build-scripts ECHO is on. Zope built. Next, do "\make install\" \(or "\make instance\" to run a Zope instance directly from the build directory\). ECHO is on. "G:\USR\BIN\PYTHON.EXE" "G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/setup.py" \ build --build-base="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3" --build-lib="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3/build-lib" --build-scripts="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3/build-scripts" --build-temp="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3/build-temp" running build running build_py running build_ext running build running build_py running build running build_scripts "G:\USR\BIN\PYTHON.EXE" "G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/setup.py" install \ --prefix="/usr/local/Zope" --build-base="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3" --build-lib="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3/build-lib" --build-scripts="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3/build-scripts" --build-temp="G:/ux2bs/workdir/Zope-2.7.2-0/build-base/python-2.3/build-temp" invalid command name '' make: *** [install] Error 1 The relevant part of the Makefile, shown below is the same in both cases, but in one at echo comes out as a blank line, in the other it comes out as ECHO is on. # default: The default step (invoked when make is called without a target) default: build at echo at echo Zope built. Next, do \'make install\' \(or \'make instance\' at echo to run a Zope instance directly from the build directory\). at echo # build: Do whatever 'setup.py build' implies build: ${PYTHON} "${BASE_DIR}/setup.py" \ ${DISTUTILS_OPTS} build ${BUILD_FLAGS} Does this indicate a different shell is in play? And if so how could I find out the reason for seeing a different result for at echo ? -- John **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:05:35 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ECHO is on. On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:31:40PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > The relevant part of the Makefile, shown below is the same in both cases, > but in one at echo comes out as a blank line, in the other it comes out as > ECHO is on. As soon as I posted that and read it back, it seemed obvious - MAKESHELL was missing in the second instance. It's working as it should, now. -- John **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:04:46 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions John Poltorak wrote: > > Is Moztools on Hobbes a bundle of all the tools I need? Don't know. It depends on the date of the package and whether any changes to the required tools have occurred since. h~ **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:20:29 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: ECHO is on. Hi, > The relevant part of the Makefile, shown below is the same in both cases, > but in one at echo comes out as a blank line, in the other it comes out as > ECHO is on. (snipp) > Does this indicate a different shell is in play? IMO, yes. "ECHO is on" implies that cmd.exe is being used as shell, while the blank line indicates a unix-like shell. > And if so how could I > find out the reason for seeing a different result for at echo ? Assuming you're under cmd, check the output of "make --version", "set MAKESHELL", "set MAKE_SHELL", "set OS2_SHELL", set "COMSPEC" and "dir \bin\sh*". Regards, Stefan **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:06:00 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions Henry Sobotka wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > >> >> Is Moztools on Hobbes a bundle of all the tools I need? > > > Don't know. It depends on the date of the package and whether any > changes to the required tools have occurred since. > > h~ That is most likely out of date now, as I built the package in August of 2003. Looks like I should fix that little problem and try building Moz again as well. I'm such a glutton for punishment! Jeff **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:42:30 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:05:12 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Is Moztools on Hobbes a bundle of all the tools I need? > No, that is out of date now, eg the autoconf 2.13 included in that package is the one I had problems with. Also some of the libs eg glib and libidl need to be built with the current Innotek GCC. Dave **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:53:34 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:34:51 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >Yes, I'll have to gear up to incorporating GCC 3.3.4 or whatever gets >released. I want to make sure I have the rest of the environment set up >and a way of toggling between different compilers. Innotek includes a nice gccenv.cmd for setting up the enviroment. Dave **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:52:27 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:08:14 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Won't it build using the latest Autoconf (v2.59 for OS/2) ? No, it won't build with autoconf 2.5x on any platform. See bug 104642 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104642) for details. > >I'd also like to use pdksh which I've been using for a couple of years >with a lot of success - I dropped bash as quickly as I could. It should build with pdksh though I'd still advice starting with ash. I wouldn't be surprised if it has ash hardcoded into it. The configure, makefiles etc are setup for IBMs enviroment Dave **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:58:51 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:42:30PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:05:12 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >Is Moztools on Hobbes a bundle of all the tools I need? > > > > No, that is out of date now, eg the autoconf 2.13 included in that package is the one I had problems with. Also some of the libs eg glib and libidl need to be built with the current Innotek GCC. Looking at the Warpzilla build instructions this looks to be the current list of requirements:- http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d/emxrt.zip http://www.axess.com/users/sobotka/warpzilla/srcs/autoconf-gcc.zip http://www.axess.com/users/sobotka/warpzilla/srcs/glibidl-b4.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/perl/perl-5.8.0-bin.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/perl/perl-5.8.0-core.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/util/cvs-m-1.11.2.zip ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/source/os2tools.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/util/shell/ashos2.zip http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Evtgf3mpr/gnu/sh-util.htm http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Evtgf3mpr/gnu/text-util.htm http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Evtgf3mpr/gnu/fileutils.htm http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Evtgf3mpr/gnu/diff.htm http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/grep/grep-2_5_1-bin.zip http://homepage1.nifty.com/jsawa/gnu/gawk304.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/misc/gnum4.zip http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/make/make-3_81rc1-bin.zip http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/gettext/gettext-0_11_5-r2-bin.zip http://unix.os2site.com/sw/pub/binary/sed/sed-4_0_5-bin.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/util/disk/gnufind.zip ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/util/archiver/unz551x2.exe ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/util/archiver/zip23x2.zip ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/warpzilla/os2tk40rc.zip ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/ps/products/warpzilla/ilink50.zip http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~vtgf3mpr/gnu/patch-2.5.4-1.i386-OS2.rpm http://pws.prserv.net/jpinet.jsawa/rpm/unrpm.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/util/archiver/gtar258.zip http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/graphics/convert/winico92.zip http://download.innotek.de/gccos2/3.2.2-Beta4/gcc-3.2.2-beta4.exe http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gcc/setmozenv.cmd Can anyone point out any errors or ommissions? Why do glib and libidl need to be built with the latest Innotek GCC? > Dave -- John **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:41:34 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:52:27PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:08:14 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >Won't it build using the latest Autoconf (v2.59 for OS/2) ? > > No, it won't build with autoconf 2.5x on any platform. See bug 104642 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104642) for details. Thanks for pointing that out. I thought it was just an issue for OS/2 but it seems everyone is affected. It looks like someone needs to update a Mozilla m4 macro but no one knows how - I bet Andreas Buening could do it in no time... ;-) > > > >I'd also like to use pdksh which I've been using for a couple of years > >with a lot of success - I dropped bash as quickly as I could. > > It should build with pdksh though I'd still advice starting with ash. I wouldn't be surprised if it has ash hardcoded into it. The configure, makefiles etc are setup for IBMs enviroment That's one of the first things I'll try, if/when I have it building properly. > Dave -- John **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:38:56 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: CLAM AntiVirus software Has anyone come across CLAM AntiVirus software? http://sourceforge.net/projects/clamav/ I'd like to try and incorporate it into my mail processing procedures. Is it likely to build on OS/2? -- John **= Email 28 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:43:32 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions Hi, (snipp) > http://download.innotek.de/gccos2/3.2.2-Beta4/gcc-3.2.2-beta4.exe > http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/gcc/setmozenv.cmd > > > Can anyone point out any errors or ommissions? I'm a bit surprised to not see gcc-3.2.2-beta4csd1.zip in there. > Why do glib and libidl need to be built with the latest Innotek GCC? Innotek GCC and EMX are not using exactly the same calling conventions for functions (i.e. they do use different registers/memory addresses to pass arguments/results in to/out of the function), so the best is to always use the same compiler for everything. In theroy, there also is the possibility to use a binary editor on the library (if needed/possible) and to specify the calling convention expected by your library in the header file, but that really is only attractive, if you don't have access to the sources... Regards, Stefan **= Email 29 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:53:24 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: GLIB/LIBIDL Just starting out on my Mozilla build journey.... I get this when configure runs:- checking for glib-config... C:\GLIBIDL\GLIB\gcc\bin\glib-config checking for GLIB - version >= 1.2.0... no *** Could not run GLIB test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the *** exact error that occured. This usually means GLIB was incorrectly installed *** or that you have moved GLIB since it was installed. In the latter case, you *** may want to edit the glib-config script: C:\GLIBIDL\GLIB\gcc\bin\glib-config checking for libIDL-config... C:\GLIBIDL\LIBIDL\gcc\bin\libIDL-config checking for libIDL - version >= 0.6.3... no *** Could not run libIDL test program, checking why... *** The test program failed to compile or link. See the file config.log for the *** exact error that occured. This usually means libIDL was incorrectly installed *** or that you have moved libIDL since it was installed. In the latter case, you *** may want to edit the libIDL-config script: C:\GLIBIDL\LIBIDL\gcc\bin\libIDL-config checking for orbit-config... no configure: error: libIDL not found. libIDL 0.6.3 or higher is required. I've installed glib/libidl as per Warpzilla build instructions and run setmozenv to create the correct environment. How do I tell what versions I have of the required files? -- John **= Email 30 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:58:46 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Warpzilla Build Instructions On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:58:51AM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > Looking at the Warpzilla build instructions this looks to be the current > list of requirements:- > **= Email 31 ==========================** Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:27:32 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: GLIB/LIBIDL (snipp) > Just starting out on my Mozilla build journey.... > > I get this when configure runs:- > > checking for glib-config... C:\GLIBIDL\GLIB\gcc\bin\glib-config (snipp) > How do I tell what versions I have of the required files? run "glib-config --version" from ash/pdksh or a similar shell, possibly specify the path for glib-config. Maybe the backslashes are a problem? Regards, Stefan