Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:04:22 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 504 ************************************************** Sunday 16 January 2005 Number 504 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: OpenSSL update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 2 Zope : John Poltorak 3 Re: SW: postgreSQL V8.0 RC5 release] : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 4 Re: OpenSSL update : John Poltorak 5 Re: Date coversion using GNU Date : Anton Monroe 6 Re: OpenSSL update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 7 Re: OpenSSL update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 8 Re: Zope : Dave Yeo" 9 Re: Zope : John Poltorak 10 Python v2.4 : John Poltorak 11 Perl revisited : John Poltorak 12 teTeX : Dave Yeo" 13 Re: Zope : Dave Yeo" 14 Re: SW: postgreSQL V8.0 RC5 release] : Dave Yeo" 15 Re: bsdtar (was Zope) : Dave Yeo" 16 wchar.h and innotek_libc : Dave Yeo" 17 Re: wchar.h and innotek_libc : lsunley at mb.sympatico.ca 18 Re: wchar.h and innotek_libc : Dave Yeo" 19 Re: zlib : John Poltorak 20 Re: teTeX : John Poltorak 21 Python 2.4 available : John Poltorak 22 Re: Date coversion using GNU Date : John Poltorak 23 tar zxf : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:55:48 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: OpenSSL update Hi, > >That one is due to a new assembler routine which requires > >-DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_PART_WORDS as an additional flag for compilation > >- the Makefile(s) for OS/2 apparently need to be adapted. > > > >> LINK386 : error L2022: ENGINE_load_gmp (alias ENGINE_load_gmp) : export undefined > > > >Hm. the settings for compiling e_gmp.c apparently don't quite > >match the list of defined symbols. Since the later seems to be > >generated, I guess somebody (Brian?) forgot to include updates > >for util\pl\OS2-EMX.pl (or a similar file) when submitting some > >other changes - I suppose those problems will be updated over > >the next couple of days... > > ???? > I just built a clean checkout of the OpenSSL_0_9_7-stable branch & it built > without error. Are you building that or HEAD (0.9.8)? Ah, thanks for the pointer, I didn't realize there are actually three different snapshots per day (0.9.6, 0.9.7, head). What I grabbed apparently is head, where some new features have been added, resulting in the two problems above. Sorry for confusion... Regards, Stefan **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:00:53 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Zope If anyone on this list is interested, the latest version of Zope has been released and can be obtained here:- http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.7.4 I've managed to get previous versions built out of the box and hope the same will apply in this case - that is once I've managed to extracted the files properly since some of them break GTAK's 100 byte filename limit. This underlies the need to get a new version of GNU Tar built on OS/2, which I managed to build but couldn't stop it dumping core every time it ran. If you haven't come across Zope, you should have a look at it. Here it is in action on OS/2:- http://warp5.dyndns.org:8080/OS2Dresden There is a ZOPE-OS2 list which is where I tried to post this initially, but that is down at the moment. -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:09:23 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: SW: postgreSQL V8.0 RC5 release] ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:48:48 +0000 > Hi, > although I'm still struggling to get an Innotek version > of PDKSH built. Not sure, since I hope a shell would rather use spawn instead of fork on OS/2, but your problems with PDKSH could be just another instance of the fork problems observed with e.g. postgreSQL. Regards, Stefan **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:41:49 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: OpenSSL update On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:55:48PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > ???? > > I just built a clean checkout of the OpenSSL_0_9_7-stable branch & it built > > without error. Are you building that or HEAD (0.9.8)? > > Ah, thanks for the pointer, I didn't realize there are actually three > different snapshots per day (0.9.6, 0.9.7, head). What I grabbed apparently > is head, where some new features have been added, resulting in the > two problems above. Sorry for confusion... Can you clarify the position for those of us not familiar with all these snapshots? Which should we be checking? Are we now in a position to be able to build the next release - 0.9.7f or 0.9.8 (whichever it is) out of the box without needing any patches? (Assuming no new code is added which breaks on OS/2). > Regards, > Stefan -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:44:31 -0600 From: Anton Monroe Subject: Re: Date coversion using GNU Date > GNU Date seems like a useful utility for handling dates in various formats > and I'm sure it can be used to convert a datestamp in seconds (from 1/1/1970) > to something more readable, but I can't get the format correct. > > Here is what I tried:- > date +%Y:%m:%d:%H:%M:%S --date=1105707584 I think what you want is: date +%Y:%m:%d:%H:%M:%S --date="1/1/1970 +1105707584 seconds" Anton **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:03:12 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: OpenSSL update Hi, > > Ah, thanks for the pointer, I didn't realize there are actually three > > different snapshots per day (0.9.6, 0.9.7, head). What I grabbed apparently > > is head, where some new features have been added, resulting in the > > two problems above. Sorry for confusion... > > Can you clarify the position for those of us not familiar with all these > snapshots? If you look at a snapshot directory on any OpenSSL mirror, you'll see e.g. openssl-0.9.6-stable-SNAP-20050115.tar.gz openssl-0.9.7-stable-SNAP-20050115.tar.gz openssl-SNAP-20050115.tar.gz The first one is going to be openssl-0.9.6n once it has accumulated a relevant bugfix over the current openssl-0.9.6m, the second one is going to be openssl-0.9.7f once that's going to be released (and that's the one that currently should compile OOTB according to Brian and the most relevant for us) and the last one is going to be openssl-0.9.8 at some point of time in the more or less distant future - that's the one with a couple of new features, two of which are currently giving problems according to my attempt to compile it. > Which should we be checking? openssl-0.9.6-stable-SNAP-date.tar.gz, IMHO. > Are we now in a position to be able to build the next release - 0.9.7f or > 0.9.8 (whichever it is) out of the box without needing any patches? The "candidate" for O.9.7f currently yes, the one for 0.9.8 currently not - but that still has to go some way to stabilize anyway, so it's not really worth worrying over it, yet, AFAIK. Regards, Stefan **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:13:24 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: OpenSSL update Hi, > > Which should we be checking? > > openssl-0.9.6-stable-SNAP-date.tar.gz, IMHO. Sorry, for the typo, what I meant to write was openssl-0.9.7-stable-SNAP-20050115.tar.gz, of course. Regards, Stefan **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:27:24 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Zope On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:00:53 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >I've managed to get previous versions built out of the box and hope the >same will apply in this case - that is once I've managed to extracted the >files properly since some of them break GTAK's 100 byte filename limit. >This underlies the need to get a new version of GNU Tar built on OS/2, >which I managed to build but couldn't stop it dumping core every time it >ran. Why not use star? Seems to extract most everything here and doesn't have those ancient TAR limits. (yes the 100 byte limit was a TAR limit, not just GNUtar) Suggest reading the star README.otherbugs. Another TAR to consider is BSD TAR. Dave **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:19:19 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Zope On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 08:27:24AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:00:53 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >I've managed to get previous versions built out of the box and hope the > >same will apply in this case - that is once I've managed to extracted the > >files properly since some of them break GTAK's 100 byte filename limit. > >This underlies the need to get a new version of GNU Tar built on OS/2, > >which I managed to build but couldn't stop it dumping core every time it > >ran. > > Why not use star? I did have some problems with it... - don't recall precisely what, just at the moment, maybe something to do with drive letters. Also, I never found a way of building it automatically. > Seems to extract most everything here and doesn't have those > ancient TAR limits. (yes the 100 byte limit was a TAR limit, not just GNUtar) Suggest > reading the star README.otherbugs. > Another TAR to consider is BSD TAR. Do you have a URL for that? > Dave -- John **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:31:13 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Python v2.4 Now that Python v2.4 has been released should I be able to build it myself on OS/2? ISTR that the OS/2 patches for v2.3.4 only consisted of a number of Makefiles and the only source change was the addition of emx_link. Wouldn't same patches also work with v2.4? -- John **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:37:10 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Perl revisited Having built Perl on numerous occasions, I would have thought I would be able to run modules such a CPAN.pm without too much trouble, but it looks as though it doesn't work properly... The other day I used a version from Perl 5.8.0 and that worked fine, so I'm left wondering whether there is something wrong with my builds of recent releases of Perl. How would I tell? Can I jusy copy this working version of CPAN to my 5.8.6 directory and expect it to continue working? -- John **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:24:49 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: teTeX I see our old friend Mr Jun Sawataishi has built teTeX 2.99.9.20050111 and uploaded the whole package (20 MB) to hobbes incoming. Dave **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:38:00 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Zope On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:19:19 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> Why not use star? > >I did have some problems with it... - don't recall precisely what, just at >the moment, maybe something to do with drive letters. Yes, like so many programs that have only been recompiled, not ported it doesn't support drive letters. And as it uses a colon (:) for accessing networked tape drives it is nontrivial to add drive letter support. I just use it from a TVFS volume. > >Also, I never found a way of building it automatically. > >> Seems to extract most everything here and doesn't have those >> ancient TAR limits. (yes the 100 byte limit was a TAR limit, not just GNUtar) Suggest >> reading the star README.otherbugs. >> Another TAR to consider is BSD TAR. > >Do you have a URL for that? Not really. Might want to check this one out http://people.freebsd.org/~kientzle/libarchive/ Still going to have drive letter problems though. Dave **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:17:35 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: SW: postgreSQL V8.0 RC5 release] On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:48:48 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >I never did have much success with ASH, although Knut >seems to use it without any problems... > Did you work around the PATH problems? Ash drops the first entry in %PATH% so you need to add a dummy value, eg set PATH=\foo;%PATH% Dave **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:18:55 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: bsdtar (was Zope) On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:38:00 -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: >>> Another TAR to consider is BSD TAR. >> >>Do you have a URL for that? > >Not really. Might want to check this one out http://people.freebsd.org/~kientzle/libarchive/ >Still going to have drive letter problems though. I got most of libarchive and bsdtar to compile but they fail linking due to unfinished parts of Innotek_libc. They will not compile on EMX due to dependence on wchar.h and possibly others. Missing symbols include _fchdir _mkfifo Which are labeled TODO in libc includes and a bunch from wchar.h There most likely are older versions that don't depend on wchar.h (wchar.h seems to be for unicode, wide chars) Dave **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:19:05 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: wchar.h and innotek_libc Hi has anyone got any of the functions in wchar.h to link? Twice in the last 2 days I've had source (wget-cvs and bsdtar) fail in old emx due to wchar.h. In both cases they compile under Innotek_libc but fail to link. While some of the failures are due to not being implemented yet (&todo) others such as wcscmp look like they are implemented but aren't locatable in /usr/lib and produce undefined symbol errors Dave **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:14:30 -0500 From: lsunley at mb.sympatico.ca Subject: Re: wchar.h and innotek_libc In <20050116041843.1C0B6D3F99 at generation.lgisp.net>, on 01/15/05 at 08:19 PM, "Dave Yeo" said: >Hi has anyone got any of the functions in wchar.h to link? Twice in the >last 2 days I've had source (wget-cvs and bsdtar) fail in old emx due to >wchar.h. In both cases they compile under Innotek_libc but fail to link. >While some of the failures are due to not being implemented yet (&todo) >others such as wcscmp look like they are implemented but aren't locatable >in /usr/lib and produce undefined symbol errors Dave AFAIK Knut was working on some of that for beta 3 of LIBC -- ----------------------------------------------------------- lsunley at mb.sympatico.ca ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:42:05 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: wchar.h and innotek_libc On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:14:30 -0500, lsunley at mb.sympatico.ca wrote: >AFAIK Knut was working on some of that for beta 3 of LIBC Good to hear Dave **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:53:31 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: zlib On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:56:55AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:22:11 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >But can you build it? > > Yes Any clues? BTW in the zlib 1.2.2 archive there is an 'old' directory which includes an os2 directory as well as a README which says:- This directory contains files that have not been updated for zlib 1.2.x (Volunteers are encouraged to help clean this up. Thanks.) It would be good to include build instructions for OS/2 within the archive which even provides support for DOS. Is the win32\makefile.gcc a reasonable example to follow? > Dave -- John **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:18:57 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: teTeX On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 03:24:49PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > I see our old friend Mr Jun Sawataishi has built teTeX 2.99.9.20050111 and uploaded the whole package (20 MB) to hobbes incoming. It's good to see Mr Sawataishi back in production. I hadn't heard from him in a while. I'll be interested to check out his port of teTeX. > Dave > -- John **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:08:55 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Python 2.4 available For anyone using Python you may be interested to know the latest OS/2 port is now available. Details here:- http://www.andymac.org/python-2.4/ -- John **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:13:13 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Date coversion using GNU Date On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 08:44:31AM -0600, Anton Monroe wrote: > > GNU Date seems like a useful utility for handling dates in various formats > > and I'm sure it can be used to convert a datestamp in seconds (from 1/1/1970) > > to something more readable, but I can't get the format correct. > > > > Here is what I tried:- > > date +%Y:%m:%d:%H:%M:%S --date=1105707584 > > I think what you want is: > date +%Y:%m:%d:%H:%M:%S --date="1/1/1970 +1105707584 seconds" Many thanks for that. It isn't too intuitive and I don't see it mentioned in any docs. Just wondered how you worked that out... > Anton > -- John **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:27:08 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: tar zxf Is there any difference in terms of performance or funcionality between running:- tar zxf archivefile.tgz and gzip -d archivefile.tgz | tar xf - -- John