Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:06:28 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 686 ************************************************** Tuesday 25 April 2006 Number 686 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Zope on OS/2 : John Poltorak 2 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Dave Yeo" 3 Re: Sendmail : Dave Yeo" 4 Re: Sendmail : John Poltorak 5 Re: Building bash with Innotek_libc : Dave Yeo" 6 Re: Zope on OS/2 : Christian Hennecke" 7 Re: Zope on OS/2 : Bill Nicholls 8 Re: Sendmail : Brendan Oakley" 9 Re: Zope on OS/2 : Christian Hennecke" 10 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Steven Levine" 11 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de" 12 Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL : illya at vaeshiep.demon.nl 13 Re: Sendmail : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:13 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Zope on OS/2 Is anyone using Zope on OS/2? And would there be any point in setting up a mailing list for it? I know there was one, but it doesn't function any more. I've found Zope to be quite a neat web publishing tool, but difficult to get the hang of sometimes. I'd appreciate sharing experiences with any other OS/2 users. -- John **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:45:12 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:37:12 -0700, Steven Levine wrote: >At the time, he had no real interest in >persuing a gcc 3.3.5 solution because he needs to support existing Warp3 >and Warp4 development and said libc was not working under Warp3. I don't >know if this has changed. IIRC someone found the bug (a simple typo) that was stopping libc from running on Warp v3 Dave **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:55:56 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Sendmail On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:52:13 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >What is the need for an updated Sendmail? Is not sendmail full of security holes? Dave **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:06:12 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Sendmail On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:55:56AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:52:13 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >What is the need for an updated Sendmail? > > Is not sendmail full of security holes? Do you mean the open mail relay or something else? Sendmail which comes with TCP/IP v4.3 provided configuration options to block the open mail relay. I'm not aware of any other problems. > Dave -- John **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:52:17 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Building bash with Innotek_libc On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:45:01 -0700, Steven Levine wrote: >In <20060424034420.13309B6F36 at generation.lgisp.net>, on 04/23/06 > at 08:44 PM, "Dave Yeo" said: > >>decided to try building bash with GCC 3.3.5 so it has symlink support. >>Things went pretty good, just having to remove a few EMX defines but at >>the end I get support/i386-ibm-os2/emx_supp.c:251 (emx_supp.o): Undefined >>symbol _VioGetCurPos referenced from text segment >>support/i386-ibm-os2/emx_supp.c:703 (emx_supp.o): Undefined symbol >>_WinChangeSwitchEntry referenced from text segment >>support/i386-ibm-os2/emx_supp.c:687 (emx_supp.o): Undefined symbol >>_WinChangeSwitchEntry referenced from text segment >>support/i386-ibm-os2/emx_supp.c:397 (emx_supp.o): Undefined symbol >>_WinQuerySwitchHandle referenced from text segment >>support/i386-ibm-os2/emx_supp.c:397 (emx_supp.o): Undefined symbol >>_WinQuerySwitchEntry referenced from text segment > >This looks like a header problem. These should all have system linkage >(i.e. no _ prefix). Which toolkit headers are you using. Using os2emx.h from Innotek_libc. Turned out I needed to add #define INCL_VIO #define INCL_WINSWITCHLIST before os2.h, kinda surprising as usually these problems usually cause a parse error. Also had a problem with size.exe which was fixed by removing the one that comes with innotek_libc. Now to run the tests and look over the patch closer. Bash does seem to run. Someone else on a different list was also complaining about the lack of LIBPATHSTRICT and BEGINLIBPATH support so be nice to add these Dave **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:41:28 +0200 (CEST) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: Zope on OS/2 On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:13 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >Is anyone using Zope on OS/2? And would there be any point in setting up a >mailing list for it? I know there was one, but it doesn't function any >more. > >I've found Zope to be quite a neat web publishing tool, but difficult to >get the hang of sometimes. I'd appreciate sharing experiences with any >other OS/2 users. The OS/2 User Group Dresden is using Zope/Plone for their web site. They also ran the Warpstock Europe 2005 web site with it. Christian Hennecke **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:52:16 -0700 From: Bill Nicholls Subject: Re: Zope on OS/2 Another option to consider is Typo3. There are instructions for installing it on OS/2 here: http://www.os4you.de/typo3goesos2en.html#list_of_applications And documentation (best I have seen) here: http://typo3.com/ Also check out http://typo3.org. Finally, Typo3 V4 has just been released. Typo3 is very powerful, is used internationally, supports many languages and several methods for updating. Plus the tutorial is really good. It seems much more approachable than Zope, which I have also looked at quite a bit. But Zope V2 was quite confusing, the docs were written so that you had to understand the whole system before using it. Not so with Typo3 (IMNSHO) BillN Christian Hennecke wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:13 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >>Is anyone using Zope on OS/2? And would there be any point in setting up a >>mailing list for it? I know there was one, but it doesn't function any >>more. >> >>I've found Zope to be quite a neat web publishing tool, but difficult to >>get the hang of sometimes. I'd appreciate sharing experiences with any >>other OS/2 users. > > > The OS/2 User Group Dresden is using Zope/Plone for their web site. > They also ran the Warpstock Europe 2005 web site with it. > > Christian Hennecke > > > **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:38:36 -0700 From: "Brendan Oakley" Subject: Re: Sendmail ------=_Part_32703_21725159.1145911116510 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 4/24/06, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:27:59PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > > 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 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 > 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 > > I did try building a recent version after following some notes supplied b= y > Alexander Lapshin some time ago. He seemed to be pretty familiar with th= e > progam but I haven't heard from him for a while. > > I never managed to get it to work with Majordomo anyway, so I went back t= o > IBM's Sendmail which I have continued to use for years. > > What is the need for an updated Sendmail? > > > -- > John > > > > Hi John. I was hoping you would post. I need the latest Sendmail because I do development for my work using Sendmail. Doing it on OS/2 isn't strictly necessary, but I want to. Neither IBM Sendmail nor the older versions of Sendmail would work for me. It is true there are a number of serious security holes in Sendmail that have been fixed in later versions, but I doubt IBM Sendmail has them. It might be interesting to check it. Brendan ------=_Part_32703_21725159.1145911116510 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
On 4/24/06, John Poltorak <jp at warpix.org> wrote:
paul at smedley.in= fo > wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you point me to the r= ecent 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.
> &= gt;>
> >>
> >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 doe= s not include
> >source. Still, that is a late enough version that= if the patches and OS
> >specs had been submitted to Sendmail the= y would remain in the tree, along
> >with all the *nixes mentioned in their docs that can't possibl= y really be
> >tested anymore. And that was my point.
> >=
> >It's a rather high priority for me to build Sendmail on OS/2 s= oon so keep in
> >touch.
> >
> >Brendan
> >
>> I thought that John Poltotak had a recent build.
> John are yo= u still here? It's your server so I hope you are <gr>
> 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
=
I did try building a recent version after following some notes supplied= by
Alexander Lapshin some time ago. He seemed to be pretty familiar &= nbsp;with the
progam but I haven't heard from him for a while.

I = never managed to get it to work with Majordomo anyway, so I went back toIBM's Sendmail which I have continued to use for years.

What is the need for an updated Sendmail?


--
John
=



Hi John. I was hoping you would post.

I need the latest Sendmail because I do development for my work using Sendmail. Doing it on OS/2 isn't strictly necessary, but I want to. Neither IBM Sendmail nor the older versions of Sendmail would work for me.

It is true there are a number of serious security holes in Sendmail that have been fixed in later versions, but I doubt IBM Sendmail has them. It might be interesting to check it.

Brendan

------=_Part_32703_21725159.1145911116510-- **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:45:42 +0200 (CEST) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: Zope on OS/2 On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:52:16 -0700, Bill Nicholls wrote: >Another option to consider is Typo3. There are instructions for >installing it on OS/2 here: >http://www.os4you.de/typo3goesos2en.html#list_of_applications > >And documentation (best I have seen) here: http://typo3.com/ > >Also check out http://typo3.org. > >Finally, Typo3 V4 has just been released. Typo3 is very powerful, is >used internationally, supports many languages and several methods for >updating. Plus the tutorial is really good. It seems much more >approachable than Zope, which I have also looked at quite a bit. But >Zope V2 was quite confusing, the docs were written so that you had to >understand the whole system before using it. Not so with Typo3 (IMNSHO) Full ACK. Roland Schmalenberg told me that he was trying to get Typo3 V4 to run on OS/2 for the developers' workshop in Biel. I don't know if he was able to finish it in time. Christian Hennecke **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:16:39 -0700 From: "Steven Levine" Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL In <1FXxrS-1WgK4e0 at fwd35.aul.t-online.de>, on 04/24/06 at 12:00 PM, "Stefan.Neis at t-online.de" said: Hi Stefan, >Actually, why did you use a.out instead of the standard ELF? And what >tricks do you use to tell the compiler to generate a.out instead of ELF? As I mentioned, I am bit fuzzy on this. I've always considered a.out and ELF formats, as the same thing, at least on Solaris. Are you referring to some other form of a.out encoding? 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 11 ==========================** Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:01:26 +0200 From: "Stefan.Neis at t-online.de" Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL Hi, > As I mentioned, I am bit fuzzy on this. Ah, I see.. > I've always considered a.out and ELF formats, as the same thing, No, not really. They are about as different as OMF and a.out, probably even more so. AFAIK Unix style shared libraries were a major problem for a.out format, which was (part of?) the reason to develop and use ELF... AFAIK, Solaris ist strictly ELF only... Regards, Stefan **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:23:58 +0200 From: illya at vaeshiep.demon.nl Subject: Re: Building tidy - now that I have a working LIBTOOL Quoting "Stefan.Neis at t-online.de" : >> I've always considered a.out and ELF formats, as the same thing, > No, not really. They are about as different as OMF and a.out, > probably even more so. AFAIK Unix style shared libraries were a > major problem for a.out format, which was (part of?) the reason > to develop and use ELF... > AFAIK, Solaris ist strictly ELF only... IIRC, ELF was introduced with System V Release 4 (SVR4). Since Solaris 2.x (ie. SunOS 5.x) was/is based on SVR4, its native ABI was/is ELF (SunOS 4.x, called Solaris 1.x in retrospect, was based on BSD 4.x). **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:42:35 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Sendmail On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:38:36PM -0700, Brendan Oakley wrote: > > I never managed to get it to work with Majordomo anyway, so I went back to > > IBM's Sendmail which I have continued to use for years. > > > > What is the need for an updated Sendmail? > > > > > > -- > > John > > > > > > > > > Hi John. I was hoping you would post. > > I need the latest Sendmail because I do development for my work using > Sendmail. Doing it on OS/2 isn't strictly necessary, but I want to. Neither > IBM Sendmail nor the older versions of Sendmail would work for me. > > It is true there are a number of serious security holes in Sendmail that > have been fixed in later versions, but I doubt IBM Sendmail has them. It > might be interesting to check it. Which security holes? I'm using IBM's last Sendmail for OS/2 as my mail server and have been doing so for around six years. What problems are you having? I would be interested in being able to use real sendmail, but building it is rather tricky. Incidentally there is a new generation of sendmail in development - SendmailX. If anyone is interested in building sendmail on OS/2, it may be an idea to get involved with that on the ground floor and ensure it builds on OS/2 from day one rather than trying to retrofit OS/2 several years later after much hacking. The idea of being able to unpack the original sendmail source and run 'build' and have a good chance of creating an OS/2 executable is very appealing to me. It would be nice to see that happen. > Brendan -- John