Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:05:56 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 683 ************************************************** Saturday 22 April 2006 Number 683 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Steven Levine" 2 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Brendan Oakley" 3 Re: GCC and EMX : Brendan Oakley" 4 Re: GCC and EMX : IanM" 5 Re: GCC and EMX : Kees de Lezenne Coulander 6 Re: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Paul Smedley 7 Re: Re: GCC and EMX : Bill Nicholls 8 Re: GCC and EMX : Bill Nicholls 9 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Dave Yeo" 10 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Dave Yeo" 11 Sendmail : Brendan Oakley" 12 Re: Sendmail : IanM" 13 Re: Sendmail : Dave Yeo" 14 Re: Sendmail : Brendan Oakley" 15 Re: GCC and EMX : Dave Parsons" 16 Re: Sendmail : Dave Yeo" 17 Re: Sendmail : Paul Smedley **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:30:29 -0700 From: "Steven Levine" Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL In <200604211110.MAA366.85 at mail.warpix.org>, on 04/21/06 at 01:10 PM, "Christian Hennecke" said: >Great! Does your build use the already existing OS/2-related stuff? What do you mean? Did you look at the diffs? >Good luck. It wasn't easy to get OS/2-related stuff in there in the past >and nobody has reacted when I tried to submit binary builds for a long >time. I'm not terribly concerned about having them host binary builds. IAC, my experience is that the majority of eCS/OS2 users can't find things unless they are posted to Hobbes. There's also a significant minority that still don't know what Hobbes is. Go figure. IMO, the goal should be to make building no more difficult than on any other platform. To me that means with a reasonably current toolchain, the standard GNU paradigm of autoconf (if needed) configure make just works. Regards, Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Levine" MR2/ICE 2.67 #10183 Warp/eCS/DIY/14.103a_W4 www.scoug.com irc.fyrelizard.com #scoug (Wed 7pm PST) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:58:51 -0700 From: "Brendan Oakley" Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL On 4/21/06, Steven Levine wrote: > IMO, the goal should be to make building no more difficult than on any > other platform. To me that means with a reasonably current toolchain, the > standard GNU paradigm of > > autoconf (if needed) > configure > make Yeah I think it's reasonable for our OS/2 patches to be applied. The more we request that the more mainstream the OS/2 support will be. Case in point, there is a fairly current OS/2 port of Sendmail, but the Sendmail distro doesn't seem to be aware of it. The readme lists all kinds of issues with obscure OS's I've never heard of, but nothing of OS/2. A curious note in the docs is the brief "complaint" that developers who port to their OS don't submit back the proper OS-specific files for their port. Plus having OS/2 mentioned in those docs is good advertising. ;) Brendan **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:45:48 -0700 From: "Brendan Oakley" Subject: Re: GCC and EMX The Ada compiler has been ported, some time ago, by Robert Dewar: http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-browse?sh=1&dir=//pub/os2/dev/emx/contrib/gnat The OS/2 API, including PM, is supported by ADA: http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-browse?sh=1&dir=//pub/os2/dev/ada If I find a spot of time I just might try it out myself. Brendan **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:16:58 +1000 (EST) From: "IanM" Subject: Re: GCC and EMX http://unixos2.com/ada/ On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:16:31 +0200 (CEST), Christian Hennecke wrote: >On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:32:56 -0400, Dale A Cook wrote: > >>> Also, has anybody tested the Ada compiler on OS/2? >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>what's this anmal?????????????? > >GNAT, the GNU Ada Translator, is able to compile Ada95-compliant code. >Ada95 is a pretty good object-oriented language, and looks somewhat >like Pascal or Modula. It still has a bad reputation because it >originally was developed for the US military. Many developers choose >Ada because it makes maintaining large projects easier. > >Christian Hennecke > > Cheers IanM http://www.os2site.com/ bort etry ail how furry GIF **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:31:41 CET From: Kees de Lezenne Coulander Subject: Re: GCC and EMX ** Reply to note from Bill Nicholls Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:39:09 -0700 > > Are there any plans for building a GCC 4 set of compilers for OS/2 & eCS? > > Also, has anybody tested the Ada compiler on OS/2? > > Thanks, > BillN > If somebody can build it, I will contribute some testing. I maintain a good amount of Ada code and although it is deployed on Windows, programme development is still on OS/2. My code obviously does not exersize every aspect of the Ada language, but it can give any Ada compiler a good run for its money. Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Gouden Leeuw 350 1103 KH Amsterdam-Zuidoost The Netherlands **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:54:23 +0930 From: Paul Smedley Subject: Re: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL Hi Brendan, Brendan Oakley wrote: > On 4/21/06, Steven Levine wrote: >> IMO, the goal should be to make building no more difficult than on any >> other platform. To me that means with a reasonably current toolchain, the >> standard GNU paradigm of >> >> autoconf (if needed) >> configure >> make > > Yeah I think it's reasonable for our OS/2 patches to be applied. The > more we request that the more mainstream the OS/2 support will be. > > Case in point, there is a fairly current OS/2 port of Sendmail, but > the Sendmail distro doesn't seem to be aware of it. The readme lists > all kinds of issues with obscure OS's I've never heard of, but nothing > of OS/2. A curious note in the docs is the brief "complaint" that > developers who port to their OS don't submit back the proper > OS-specific files for their port. Can you point me to the recent OS/2 port of Sendmail - it's on my list to build the latest version - a recent port might save me some time :) Cheers, Paul. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:42:43 -0700 From: Bill Nicholls Subject: Re: Re: GCC and EMX Many thanks for those pointers. I don't check Hobbes regularly. BillN Brendan Oakley wrote: > The Ada compiler has been ported, some time ago, by Robert Dewar: > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-browse?sh=1&dir=//pub/os2/dev/emx/contrib/gnat > > The OS/2 API, including PM, is supported by ADA: > > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-browse?sh=1&dir=//pub/os2/dev/ada > > If I find a spot of time I just might try it out myself. > > Brendan > > **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:49:28 -0700 From: Bill Nicholls Subject: Re: GCC and EMX Kees de Lezenne Coulander wrote: > ** Reply to note from Bill Nicholls Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:39:09 -0700 > >> >>Are there any plans for building a GCC 4 set of compilers for OS/2 & eCS? >> >>Also, has anybody tested the Ada compiler on OS/2? >> >>Thanks, >>BillN >> > > > If somebody can build it, I will contribute some testing. I maintain a good > amount of Ada code and although it is deployed on Windows, programme development > is still on OS/2. My code obviously does not exersize every aspect of the Ada > language, but it can give any Ada compiler a good run for its money. > > Kees de Lezenne Coulander > > This is great - it's nice to have a few Ada fans around. The copy on Hobbes is V3.12 of GNU, and the changes to GNU 4 were substantial. No longer does GNU 4 Ada first convert Ada into C++ (yeeech!), but handles each language in its original form. BillN **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:28:45 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:03:21 -0700, Steven Levine wrote: >Hi again, > >After some interesting detours, I can now build tidy almost out of the >box. As the diffs show, the patches are minimal. After patching, the >following is sufficient to generate a working build > >export LDFLAGS='-Zomf -Zmap' >export LT_OS2_LDFLAGS='-Zomf -Zmap' >./configure -C --prefix='d:/usr' --disable-shared > >The plan is to submit a set of patches to the tidy maintainers so that >tidy will build out of the box with gcc 3.3.x or better. > >I'm looking for some suggestions on the recommended way to detect a gcc >3.x at compile time. I used > > #if defined(__OS2__) && __GNUC__ >= 3 // 30 Mar 06 SHL > >which works, but seems at bit clunky to me. > >I'd like to eliminate the need for LDFLAGS too, so I need some logic in >configure. > >LT_OS2_LDFLAGS is a feature of Knut's libtool port. I'll see if I can >come up with some reasonable patches that will grab the configured values >automatically. > >Thanks, > >Steven Pretty complicated patch , I doubt it would be accepted. Simpler (and maybe more likely to be excepted) is to in include/platform.h add && !defined(__INNOTEK_LIBC__) to the end of line 507 to stop warnings about uint being redefined add || defined(__INNOTEK_LIBC__) to the end of line 510 to typedef ulong and in src/tidylib.c add && !defined(__INNOTEK_LIBC__) to the end of line 992 (lib06 defaults to O_BINARY) with these 3 changes I did sh build/gnuauto/setup.sh sh configure make and got lt-tidy.exe 39249 04-21-06 7:16p tab2space.exe 16540 04-21-06 7:05p tidy.exe 39249 04-21-06 7:05p tidy02R.dll 303191 04-21-06 7:05p as well as import libraries and static libraries (both a.out and OMF). Tidy seems to work though I haven't tested too much. Also you can test for which version of INNOTEK_LIBC. 5 would be GCC 3.2.2 and 6 GCC 3.3.5. From the release notes o GCC defines __INNOTEK_LIBC__=0x005. The value reflects the LIBC version, form: 0xGMM Where G=major version and MM=middle version numbers. unluckily not sure from the above whether it should be 0x005 or 0x500 (0x610 for newest) Dave ps no config.site etc either **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:15:31 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:28:45 -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > >Pretty complicated patch , I doubt it would be accepted. Simpler >(and maybe more likely to be excepted) is to >in include/platform.h >add && !defined(__INNOTEK_LIBC__) to the end of line 507 to stop >warnings about uint being redefined >add || defined(__INNOTEK_LIBC__) to the end of line 510 to typedef >ulong >and in src/tidylib.c >add && !defined(__INNOTEK_LIBC__) to the end of line 992 (lib06 >defaults to O_BINARY) Actually line 510 in include/platform.h should be || defined(__EMX__) for emx compatibility, and in src/tidylib.c EMX also needs O_BINARY. I just hacked tidylib.c adding a #ifdef __EMX__ giving O_BINARY and it works. Most likely the best solution is to remove the ||defined(OS2_OS) and add another section below with #ifdef __EMX__ oldstdoutmode = setmode( fileno(stdout), O_BINARY ); oldstderrmode = setmode( fileno(stderr), O_BINARY ); #endif though this may break VACPP builds. Another solution for emx is to add the -Zbin-files CFLAG. Anyways using GCC 3.0.3 and the above #ifdef __EMX__ I built a static tidy.exe which also seems to work (wish they had a test suite). Trying to build a shared lib gave emxbind: export multiply defined: CheckSCRIPT which I don't feel like tracking down right now. Anyways with the above changes tidy.exe should build with any GCC from 2.95.3 up. Dave **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:15:13 -0700 From: "Brendan Oakley" Subject: Sendmail ------=_Part_18431_6774183.1145679313938 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 4/21/06, Paul Smedley wrote: > > Can you point me to the recent OS/2 port of Sendmail - it's on my list > to build the latest version - a recent port might save me some time :) > > Cheers, > > Paul. > > I apologize, I was sure I had seen it someplace but after I sent that post = I went to look for it and couldn't find it. It's quite possible I was mistaken. The versions on Hobbes are quite old, and 8.12.3 does not include source. Still, that is a late enough version that if the patches and OS specs had been submitted to Sendmail they would remain in the tree, along with all the *nixes mentioned in their docs that can't possibly really be tested anymore. And that was my point. It's a rather high priority for me to build Sendmail on OS/2 soon so keep i= n touch. Brendan ------=_Part_18431_6774183.1145679313938 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

 

I apologize, I was sure I had seen it someplace but after I sent t= hat post I went to look for it and couldn't find it. It's quite possible I = was mistaken. The versions on Hobbes are quite old, and 8.12.3 does not inc= lude source. Still, that is a late enough version that if the patches and O= S specs had been submitted to Sendmail they would remain in the tree, along= with all the *nixes mentioned in their docs that can't possibly really be = tested anymore. And that was my point.
 
It's a rather high priority for me to build Sendmail on OS/2 soon so k= eep in touch.
 
Brendan
------=_Part_18431_6774183.1145679313938-- **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:13:31 +1000 (EST) From: "IanM" Subject: Re: Sendmail Hi Brendan >mistaken. The versions on Hobbes are quite old, and 8.12.3 does not include >source. 8.12.3 source can be found at This is also the most recent version I have. Cheers IanM http://www.os2site.com/ The Microsoft Macarena: spin, spin, spin. **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:27:59 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Sendmail On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:15:13 -0700, Brendan Oakley wrote: >On 4/21/06, Paul Smedley wrote: >> >> Can you point me to the recent OS/2 port of Sendmail - it's on my list >> to build the latest version - a recent port might save me some time :) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Paul. >> >> >I apologize, I was sure I had seen it someplace but after I sent that post I >went to look for it and couldn't find it. It's quite possible I was >mistaken. The versions on Hobbes are quite old, and 8.12.3 does not include >source. Still, that is a late enough version that if the patches and OS >specs had been submitted to Sendmail they would remain in the tree, along >with all the *nixes mentioned in their docs that can't possibly really be >tested anymore. And that was my point. > >It's a rather high priority for me to build Sendmail on OS/2 soon so keep in >touch. > >Brendan > I thought that John Poltotak had a recent build. John are you still here? It's your server so I hope you are Dave ps Looking at my archives John does mention a os2-sendmail mailing list. Might be worth googling. IIRC it is actually John's list **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:11:12 -0700 From: "Brendan Oakley" Subject: Re: Sendmail ------=_Part_19064_28053676.1145686272998 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Thanks Ian for the source! That will help a lot. Dave: I find googling Sendmail and OS/2 returns many results for IBM Sendmail. ------=_Part_19064_28053676.1145686272998 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Thanks Ian for the source! That will help a lot.
 
Dave: I find googling Sendmail and OS/2 returns many results for IBM S= endmail.
------=_Part_19064_28053676.1145686272998-- **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:08:53 +0200 (CES) From: "Dave Parsons" Subject: Re: GCC and EMX On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:49:28 -0700, Bill Nicholls wrote: > Kees de Lezenne Coulander wrote: > > ** Reply to note from Bill Nicholls Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:39:09 -0700 > > > >> > >>Are there any plans for building a GCC 4 set of compilers for OS/2 & eCS? > >> > >>Also, has anybody tested the Ada compiler on OS/2? > >> > >>Thanks, > >>BillN > >> > > > > > > If somebody can build it, I will contribute some testing. I maintain a good > > amount of Ada code and although it is deployed on Windows, programme development > > is still on OS/2. My code obviously does not exersize every aspect of the Ada > > language, but it can give any Ada compiler a good run for its money. > > > > Kees de Lezenne Coulander > > > > > > This is great - it's nice to have a few Ada fans around. The copy on > Hobbes is V3.12 of GNU, and the changes to GNU 4 were substantial. No > longer does GNU 4 Ada first convert Ada into C++ (yeeech!), but handles > each language in its original form. > > BillN > Hi, The latest version is GNAT 3.15p which you can find using Google. It seems that most of the links are out of date now but the link to os2ports.com still works. Dave **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:47:32 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Sendmail On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:11:12 -0700, Brendan Oakley wrote: > >Dave: I find googling Sendmail and OS/2 returns many results for IBM >Sendmail. To be honest, I never did do the google, just vaguely remmebered the subject coming up here before. Don't know what else to say as it is a vague memory And now I'm tired from a hard day so goodnite. Dave **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:49:51 +0930 From: Paul Smedley Subject: Re: Sendmail Hi Brendan, Brendan Oakley wrote: > Thanks Ian for the source! That will help a lot. > > Dave: I find googling Sendmail and OS/2 returns many results for IBM > Sendmail. Let me know how you get on - hopefully I can scratch that off my todo list :) Although I was also looking into Postfix.... Cheers, Paul.
On 4/21/06, = Paul Smedley <paul at smedley.info= > wrote:
Can you point me to the recent O= S/2 port of Sendmail - it's on my list
to build the latest version - a r= ecent port might save me some time :)

Cheers,

Paul.