Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:05:26 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600
Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 611

**************************************************
Saturday 10 September 2005
 Number  611
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3 : Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>
1  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3 : Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>
2  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3 : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de
2  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3 : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de
3  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3 : Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>


**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:06:39 -0700
From:  Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>
Subject:  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/2/05, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de <Stefan.Neis at t-online.de> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Just a "feeling" about the porting effort or can you
> give some facts?Although I can't give facts myself,
> my "feeling" meanwhile is that libc06 should be
> a rather complete replacement for EMX, with the
> "porting" effort being actually reduced to possibly
> removing some EMX specific hacks that are no
> longer needed.
> Do you know about something that's actually
> missing from libc06? The only thing I currently
> know about are pthreads, but then, I'm not really
> sure if they are actually worth the pain of imple-
> menting them.
>=20
> Regards,
> Stefan



So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced with a version of=20
libc? As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/2/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:Stefan.Neis at t-on=
line.de">Stefan.Neis at t-online.de</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Stefan.Neis at =
t-online.de">Stefan.Neis at t-online.de</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Just a=
 &quot;feeling&quot; about the porting effort or can you<br>give some facts=
?Although I can't give facts myself,
<br>my &quot;feeling&quot; meanwhile is that libc06 should be<br>a rather c=
omplete replacement for EMX, with the<br>&quot;porting&quot; effort being a=
ctually reduced to possibly<br>removing some EMX specific hacks that are no
<br>longer needed.<br>Do you know about something that's actually<br>missin=
g from libc06? The only thing I currently<br>know about are pthreads, but t=
hen, I'm not really<br>sure if they are actually worth the pain of imple-
<br>menting them.<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Re=
gards,<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Stefan</blockquote><div><br>
&nbsp;</div><br></div>So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced=
 with a version of libc? As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?<br>

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948--


**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:06:39 -0700
From:  Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>
Subject:  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/2/05, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de <Stefan.Neis at t-online.de> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Just a "feeling" about the porting effort or can you
> give some facts?Although I can't give facts myself,
> my "feeling" meanwhile is that libc06 should be
> a rather complete replacement for EMX, with the
> "porting" effort being actually reduced to possibly
> removing some EMX specific hacks that are no
> longer needed.
> Do you know about something that's actually
> missing from libc06? The only thing I currently
> know about are pthreads, but then, I'm not really
> sure if they are actually worth the pain of imple-
> menting them.
>=20
> Regards,
> Stefan



So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced with a version of=20
libc? As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/2/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:Stefan.Neis at t-on=
line.de">Stefan.Neis at t-online.de</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Stefan.Neis at =
t-online.de">Stefan.Neis at t-online.de</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Just a=
 &quot;feeling&quot; about the porting effort or can you<br>give some facts=
?Although I can't give facts myself,
<br>my &quot;feeling&quot; meanwhile is that libc06 should be<br>a rather c=
omplete replacement for EMX, with the<br>&quot;porting&quot; effort being a=
ctually reduced to possibly<br>removing some EMX specific hacks that are no
<br>longer needed.<br>Do you know about something that's actually<br>missin=
g from libc06? The only thing I currently<br>know about are pthreads, but t=
hen, I'm not really<br>sure if they are actually worth the pain of imple-
<br>menting them.<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Re=
gards,<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Stefan</blockquote><div><br>
&nbsp;</div><br></div>So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced=
 with a version of libc? As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?<br>

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948--

Received: from mail.warpix.org (213-152-37-93.dsl.eclipse.net.uk [213.152.37.93])
  by mail.unixos2.com (Weasel v1.73) for <uo1list6 at unixos2.com>; 
 10 Sep 2005 04:19:23 +1000
Received: by mail.warpix.org (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.03/2.0) id TAA286.18; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:06:47 +0100
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com by mail.warpix.org (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 2.03/2.0) id TAA286.14; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:06:43 +0100
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id q3so1077909nzb
        for <os2-unix at mail.warpix.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=tuCc/WRr4gqIkHipWAkyXS9g5c4ioCgDN3vkfDtxtvXcs2lxqu5AGVDJqSslydpLy6PT3nX0CuTMGtMb8H6FAjU+ItFthK1qyeqO8uZXn62VtDA3dmVVImmikgvybdwJfdmcL1/WfNP63a8Ws5jCvD/N8llgpI4lB/BHXmBZ9Nw=
Received: by 10.36.221.11 with SMTP id t11mr569926nzg;
        Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.135.19 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d2b4f47c050909110619fe4091 at mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1122973249.42ef3641a14d7 at modem.webmail.t-online.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948"
References: <200508010816.JAA516.78 at mail.warpix.org> <42EE92BC.37FE at nexgo.de>
	 <1122973249.42ef3641a14d7 at modem.webmail.t-online.de>
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:05:19 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600
X-OldDate:  Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:06:39 -0700
Sender: UNIXOS2-owner <UNIXOS2-owner at example.com>
X-Listname: UNIXOS2 at example.com
Reply-To:  os2-unix at mail.warpix.org
Cc: UNIXOS2 <UNIXOS2 at example.com>
From:  Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>
To:  os2-unix at mail.warpix.org
Subject: List:  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/2/05, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de <Stefan.Neis at t-online.de> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Just a "feeling" about the porting effort or can you
> give some facts?Although I can't give facts myself,
> my "feeling" meanwhile is that libc06 should be
> a rather complete replacement for EMX, with the
> "porting" effort being actually reduced to possibly
> removing some EMX specific hacks that are no
> longer needed.
> Do you know about something that's actually
> missing from libc06? The only thing I currently
> know about are pthreads, but then, I'm not really
> sure if they are actually worth the pain of imple-
> menting them.
>=20
> Regards,
> Stefan



So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced with a version of=20
libc? As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/2/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:Stefan.Neis at t-on=
line.de">Stefan.Neis at t-online.de</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Stefan.Neis at =
t-online.de">Stefan.Neis at t-online.de</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Just a=
 &quot;feeling&quot; about the porting effort or can you<br>give some facts=
?Although I can't give facts myself,
<br>my &quot;feeling&quot; meanwhile is that libc06 should be<br>a rather c=
omplete replacement for EMX, with the<br>&quot;porting&quot; effort being a=
ctually reduced to possibly<br>removing some EMX specific hacks that are no
<br>longer needed.<br>Do you know about something that's actually<br>missin=
g from libc06? The only thing I currently<br>know about are pthreads, but t=
hen, I'm not really<br>sure if they are actually worth the pain of imple-
<br>menting them.<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Re=
gards,<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Stefan</blockquote><div><br>
&nbsp;</div><br></div>So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced=
 with a version of libc? As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?<br>

------=_Part_2835_21071037.1126289199948--


**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:10:52 +0100
From:  Stefan.Neis at t-online.de
Subject:  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3

        Hi,

> So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced with a version of 
> libc?

And the compiler distribution, if you want to compile anything, of course.

> As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?

Yes, that's at least the theory. Three problems (at least) do exist:
- No gdb support with the Innotek stuff
- If you have old binaries, you (of course) still need the old DLLs
        and libraries don't really mix easily.
- XFree86 currently still wants EMX (IIRC, some of the tty support is
        missing in libc).

        Regards,
	        Stefan	




**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:10:52 +0100
From:  Stefan.Neis at t-online.de
Subject:  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3

        Hi,

> So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced with a version of 
> libc?

And the compiler distribution, if you want to compile anything, of course.

> As in 'rm -rf EMX' ?

Yes, that's at least the theory. Three problems (at least) do exist:
- No gdb support with the Innotek stuff
- If you have old binaries, you (of course) still need the old DLLs
        and libraries don't really mix easily.
- XFree86 currently still wants EMX (IIRC, some of the tty support is
        missing in libc).

        Regards,
	        Stefan	




**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:38:27 -0700
From:  Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>
Subject:  Re:  make 3.81 Beta 3

------=_Part_3538_11481267.1126305507445
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

> Hi,


Hi. :)

> > So am I to understand that all of EMX can be replaced with a version of
> > libc?
>=20
> And the compiler distribution, if you want to compile anything, of course=