Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:05:23 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 627 ************************************************** Monday 10 October 2005 Number 627 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: UX2BS restructured (long and maybe only interesting to John) : Dave Yeo" 2 Re: UX2BS restructured (long and maybe only interesting to John) : Dave Yeo" 3 find -perm : John Poltorak 4 Python 2.4.2 : Andrew MacIntyre 5 Re: How to CHMOD only read-only files? : Dave Yeo" 6 Posix2 environment : dave bamford 7 Re: Posix2 environment : Dave Yeo" 8 Re: How to CHMOD only read-only files? : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:19:24 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: UX2BS restructured (long and maybe only interesting to John) On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:55:02 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> And Less (actually scrsize) >> gcc -Zomf -I. -O2 -Wall -D__ST_MT_ERRNO__ -s -Zmtd -lX11 scrsize.c >> scrsize.c:44: X11/Xlib.h: No such file or directory >> scrsize.c:45: X11/Xutil.h: No such file or directory >> make: *** [scrsize.exe] Error 1 > >Not sure what uses scrsize but maybe the problem is due to the include >path being incomplete. > IIRC scrsize is used by less when in a xterm that is resized. Sort of a dynanimic mode co, command. And yes it would be the include path not including /usr/X11R6/include. Also the library path needs to include /usr/X11R6/lib Dave **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 09:44:11 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: UX2BS restructured (long and maybe only interesting to John) On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:55:02 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> Shouldn't this be updated to use gcc ver 3.0.3 for X compatibility? Also even when adding 3.3.5, 3.0.3 should be kept around as Innotek_libc is not compatible with XFree86. > >Is XFree86 likely to be buildable with gcc v3.3.5 anytime soon? I may add >v3.0.3 once I'm happy that I have a solid framework for building the basic >toolset. > As far as I know no. XFree86 depends on certain EMX internals that are not in Innotek_libc. Dave **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:06:14 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: find -perm I'm trying to used GNU Find to locate read-only files and reckon the '-perm' option should do the trick, but I can't figure out the syntax. Can anyone help me out here? -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:51:19 +1100 From: Andrew MacIntyre Subject: Python 2.4.2 I've released a binary distribution, available from the usual places. Sorry, Paul - this release doesn't include any of the changes you worked up for the Innotek toolchain. Cheers, Andrew. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..." E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370 andymac at pcug.org.au (alt) | Belconnen ACT 2616 Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:35:46 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: How to CHMOD only read-only files? On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 12:33:15 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >How would I set about removing the read-only attribute from files? > >I don't want to process any files in a subdirectory tree which >could well be quite extensive unless they are read-only. chmod -R +aw * , no matter what you are going to have to process all the files to decide if they are readonly anyways. Here it took 26.74 seconds to process the \unixos2 directory tree. Dir /s in a terminal takes 177.2 seconds, dir /s > dir.list takes 14 secs so processing the whole directory takes about twice as long as just setting everything to rw. Dave ps if you meant to not recurse the directory tree then leave off the -R **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:12:48 +0100 From: dave bamford Subject: Posix2 environment I am trying to port a backup utility from www.fluffy.co.uk/boxbackup We are using it successfuly on some windows machines (clients) with a Linux server, and I want to build a OS/2 client. I have got quite a long way through, compiled openssl and compiled a poll routine which it seems happy with, but got as far as requiring zlib when I found it was already in /usr/include/posix2 as was poll.h, I am using gcc 3.2.2 shell, but can anyone tell me how it should be configured to use posix. Thanks Dave Bamford. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:17:05 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Posix2 environment On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:12:48 +0100, dave bamford wrote: >I am trying to port a backup utility from www.fluffy.co.uk/boxbackup >We are using it successfuly on some windows machines (clients) >with a Linux server, and I want to build a OS/2 client. Looks like an interesting program. > >I have got quite a long way through, compiled openssl and compiled a >poll routine which it seems happy with, but got as far as requiring zlib >when I found it was already in /usr/include/posix2 as was poll.h, > >I am using gcc 3.2.2 shell, but can anyone tell me how it should be >configured >to use posix. > I doubt that the posix2 libraries would work well with 3.2.2+ as libc was rewritten and posix2 was developed to fix problems in the earlier libc (EMX). I'm sure there would be a lot of conflicting defines etc. Might be best just to use the needed functions such as poll. From the posix2 readme * HOW TO USE IT? To use this package, add the directories created by unpacking _at_the_ _beginning_ of your C_INCLUDE_PATH variable and right after the C++-only directories in your CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH variable, e.g. SET C_INCLUDE_PATH=F:/POSIX2/include;F:/EMX/INCLUDE SET CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH=F:/EMX/INCLUDE/CPP;F:/POSIX2/include;F:/EMX/INCLUD E Add the directory for the library to your LIBRARY_PATH, e.g. SET LIBRARY_PATH=F:/POSIX2/LIB;F:/EMX/LIB and add "-lcExt -lstcExt" to the linker options. Zlib is quite easy to compile, just be aware that most OS/2 Z.DLLs use ordinals. Also GCC 3.3.5 has a lot more support for various things and would likely be a better choice. Dave **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:37:15 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: How to CHMOD only read-only files? On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:35:46PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 12:33:15 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >How would I set about removing the read-only attribute from files? > > > >I don't want to process any files in a subdirectory tree which > >could well be quite extensive unless they are read-only. > > chmod -R +aw * , no matter what you are going to have to process all the files to decide > if they are readonly anyways. If I can get FIND to search for the files which only have RO set then it should be muh quicker. The '-perm' option to FIND looks as though it might do the trick but I haven't yet figured out the mode for RO. This is from the man page for FIND -perm [-|+]mode The mode may be either symbolic (see chmod(1)) or an octal num- ber. If the mode is symbolic, a starting value of zero is assumed and the mode sets or clears permissions without regard to the process' file mode creation mask. If the mode is octal, only bits 07777 (S_ISUID | S_ISGID | S_ISTXT | S_IRWXU | S_IRWXG | S_IRWXO) of the file's mode bits participate in the comparison. If the mode is preceded by a dash (``-''), this primary evaluates to true if at least all of the bits in the mode are set in the file's mode bits. If the mode is preceded by a plus (``+''), this primary evaluates to true if any of the bits in the mode are set in the file's mode bits. Otherwise, this primary evaluates to true if the bits in the mode exactly match the file's mode bits. Note, the first character of a symbolic mode may not be a dash (``-''). I can't figure out from this how RO is referred to. > Here it took 26.74 seconds to process the \unixos2 directory tree. Dir /s in a terminal > takes 177.2 seconds, dir /s > dir.list takes 14 secs so processing the whole directory > takes about twice as long as just setting everything to rw. It takes quite a long time here. > Dave -- John