Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 02:34:15 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 70 ************************************************** Thursday 06 February 2003 Number 70 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Building WGET : Dave Saville" 2 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 3 Re: starting again : Dave Saville" 4 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 5 Re: Building WGET : Dave Saville" 6 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 7 Re: Building WGET : Dave Saville" 8 Re: Building WGET : Dave Saville" 9 Re: REGEX - please test : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 10 Re: Building WGET : Patrick Ash 11 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 12 Symlinks : Bart van Leeuwen" 13 Re: Building WGET : Dave Saville" 14 Re: Building WGET : Patrick Ash 15 Re: Building WGET : Patrick Ash 16 Re: ux2 posix : John Poltorak 17 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 18 Re: ux2 posix : Bart van Leeuwen" 19 Re: Building WGET : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 20 Re: Building WGET : Henry Sobotka 21 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 22 Re: EMX v. P2 headers conflict ? : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 23 Re: Building WGET : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 24 Re: Symlinks : Adrian Gschwend" 25 Re: Symlinks : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" 26 Re: Building WGET : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" 27 Building FILE : John Poltorak 28 Re: ux2 posix : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 29 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 30 Warp Mints... Cool! : Ted Sikora 31 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 32 Re: REGEX - please test : John Poltorak 33 Re: Building WGET : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 34 Re: Building WGET : John Poltorak 35 Re: Building WGET : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 36 Re: Building WGET : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 37 Re: REGEX - please test : John Poltorak 38 Re: Warp Mints... Cool! : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" 39 Re: Building WGET : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 40 Re: REGEX - please test : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 41 Re: REGEX - please test : Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:50:34 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Building WGET On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:19:33 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:07:19PM -0600, Maynard wrote: >> Applying Patrick's patch, and deleting \unixos2\scripts\pre-conf\wget ... >> >> ?? it looks like the build just needs to be told to create .exe ?? > >Running emxbind on this should do the trick. The parameters being? I just tried emxbind wget and the resulting .exe won't run. [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]wget -V A non-recoverable error occurred. The process ended. -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:50:48 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:21:55PM +0000, Patrick Ash wrote: > setsid is found in unistd.h, and is defined to be void. wget needs a > small workaround since version 1.8.1. That explains something... I know I used to be able to build it straight out of the box and thought I had changed something in the build environment to stop it working... Having just tried v1.8, I can actually build that, although I do need to run EMXBIND to create a .exe file, but the resultant exectuable won't run. Does anything else need to be changed? > The following can be placed into utils.c (following #include > ) > > #ifdef __EMX__ > #define setsid() (0) > #endif Although this may work, I think we need to ask whether setsid is defined correctly with EMX or even Posix/2... > > Pat > > On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:58:25 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >With all this talk about WGET, I wondered if anyone had tried building > >it... > > > >I know I was able to build a previous version once without needing to do > >much to make it work, but now it ends with this:- > > >utils.o: Undefined symbol _setsid referenced from text segment > > -- > Patrick Ash > patash at comcast.net > > This OS/2 system uptime is 12 days, 04:14 hours and 24 seconds > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:52:55 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: starting again On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:28:04 +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > >> >Which shell? For cmd "help if" should give the needed details (note that >> >the implied test of "if errorlevel something" is "greater or equal" not >> >"equals"), for unix-like shells, I don' quite remember how to access the >> >exit status (was it something like "status =`command`"?). Is we are talking sh then if test $? whatever -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:02:58 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:50:34AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:19:33 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:07:19PM -0600, Maynard wrote: > >> Applying Patrick's patch, and deleting \unixos2\scripts\pre-conf\wget ... > >> > >> ?? it looks like the build just needs to be told to create .exe ?? > > > >Running emxbind on this should do the trick. > > The parameters being? I've never used any. > I just tried emxbind wget and the resulting .exe won't run. > > [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]wget -V > A non-recoverable error occurred. The process ended. Yes, same here. Just running emxbind _normally_ works. I'm not sure what is wrong here... > > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:52:52 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:02:58 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 09:50:34AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:19:33 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:07:19PM -0600, Maynard wrote: >> >> Applying Patrick's patch, and deleting \unixos2\scripts\pre-conf\wget ... >> >> >> >> ?? it looks like the build just needs to be told to create .exe ?? >> > >> >Running emxbind on this should do the trick. >> >> The parameters being? > >I've never used any. > >> I just tried emxbind wget and the resulting .exe won't run. >> >> [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]wget -V >> A non-recoverable error occurred. The process ended. > >Yes, same here. Just running emxbind _normally_ works. I'm not sure what >is wrong here... And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system tree that is only about 16K. -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:19:51 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:52:52AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > >> >Running emxbind on this should do the trick. > >> > >> The parameters being? > > > >I've never used any. > > > >> I just tried emxbind wget and the resulting .exe won't run. > >> > >> [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]wget -V > >> A non-recoverable error occurred. The process ended. > > > >Yes, same here. Just running emxbind _normally_ works. I'm not sure what > >is wrong here... > > And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system > tree that is only about 16K. That's interesting. Did you build it yourself? If so, maybe you could compare the output from configure with that produced under OS/2... I'd like to know why there is such a bid difference in size. > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:32:47 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:19:51 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:52:52AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: >> >> >Running emxbind on this should do the trick. >> >> >> >> The parameters being? >> > >> >I've never used any. >> > >> >> I just tried emxbind wget and the resulting .exe won't run. >> >> >> >> [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]wget -V >> >> A non-recoverable error occurred. The process ended. >> > >> >Yes, same here. Just running emxbind _normally_ works. I'm not sure what >> >is wrong here... >> >> And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system >> tree that is only about 16K. > >That's interesting. Did you build it yourself? No I got it off the net - wget182-os2-bin-vac.zip But I don't recall where :-) BTW just been poking in the makefile in wget src and all the occurrences of wget are suffixed with $(exeext) but it is not set. -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:36:55 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:19:51 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:52:52AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: >> >> >Running emxbind on this should do the trick. >> >> >> >> The parameters being? >> > >> >I've never used any. >> > >> >> I just tried emxbind wget and the resulting .exe won't run. >> >> >> >> [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]wget -V >> >> A non-recoverable error occurred. The process ended. >> > >> >Yes, same here. Just running emxbind _normally_ works. I'm not sure what >> >is wrong here... >> >> And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system >> tree that is only about 16K. > >That's interesting. Did you build it yourself? No I got it off the net - wget182-os2-bin-vac.zip But I don't recall where :-) BTW just been poking in the makefile in wget src and all the occurrences of wget are suffixed with $(exeext) but it is not set. I just set it to .exe and reran make in that dir and it is still the same error. And size. -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:38:51 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: REGEX - please test Hi, > Don't underestimate the dark side! The new GNU regex has already reached > the 45 KB code limit (binary, not source code size!). And several > GNU programs require the _GNU_ regex (Posix/2 contains BSD regex?). > Just 20 of them would waste 1 MB of disk space if you had no dll. So what? After some cleaning up, I currently have 4.2 GB left for OS/2. if that shouldn't be sufficient I can repartition and take something from the 1GB I have left for Windows or the 1 GB left for Linux, as I'll likely never need them. Do you really expect to scare anyone with even 100 MB more or less? Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:49:03 +0000 From: Patrick Ash Subject: Re: Building WGET Looking back at my old builds, I find that autoconf 2.13 seems to be used for all of the configure scripts. not sure if I ran it or if the original script was generated already. I did use -Zexe in 1.8.2, but do not find it used for 1.8 or 1.8.1. At this point I am not sure if I needed to use emxbind or not. I believe that I have at some time, but I think the need for its use disappeared at some time as well. btw, I used gcc 3.0.3 to build 1.8.2, not sure if that will have any bearing on the outcome or not. Pat On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:50:48 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:21:55PM +0000, Patrick Ash wrote: >> setsid is found in unistd.h, and is defined to be void. wget needs a >> small workaround since version 1.8.1. > >That explains something... I know I used to be able to build it straight >out of the box and thought I had changed something in the build >environment to stop it working... > >Having just tried v1.8, I can actually build that, although I do need to >run EMXBIND to create a .exe file, but the resultant exectuable won't run. > >Does anything else need to be changed? > >> The following can be placed into utils.c (following #include >> ) >> >> #ifdef __EMX__ >> #define setsid() (0) >> #endif > >Although this may work, I think we need to ask whether setsid is defined >correctly with EMX or even Posix/2... > > >> >> Pat >> -- Patrick Ash patash at comcast.net This OS/2 system uptime is 13 days, 01:41 hours and 31 seconds _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:00:25 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:52:52AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > >Yes, same here. Just running emxbind _normally_ works. I'm not sure what > >is wrong here... > > And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system > tree that is only about 16K. Are you sure about its size ? :-)... I just found it somewhere. It seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Hobbes... > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:00:50 +0100 From: "Bart van Leeuwen" Subject: Symlinks Hi all, is there any1 working on symlinks ? and hw about developing a netdrive plugin for that ? With Regards Bart van Leeuwen _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:18:14 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:00:25 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:52:52AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > >> >Yes, same here. Just running emxbind _normally_ works. I'm not sure what >> >is wrong here... >> >> And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system >> tree that is only about 16K. > >Are you sure about its size ? :-)... OK - so I am out by a factor of ten :-) - Its still smaller than ours. [D:\bin]ls -l wget.exe -rwxrwx--a 167775 Aug 16 13:44 wget.exe [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]!ls ls -l wget.exe -rwxrwx--a 267394 Feb 7 11:33 wget.exe -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:25:13 +0000 From: Patrick Ash Subject: Re: Building WGET There are a couple of reasons that the executable might be smaller. The 'vac' designation shows that it has been compiled with VisualAge C++, and I beleive that this compiler creates more efficient code than does gcc, especially 2.8.1. It also may have been processed with something like lxlite before it was packaged for placement on hobbes. If one uses gcc, running emxbind -s file.exe can sometimes dramatically reduce the size of the executables, depending on the amount of symbols used in the code. Pat On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:00:25 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system >> tree that is only about 16K. > >Are you sure about its size ? :-)... > > >I just found it somewhere. It seems to have mysteriously disappeared from >Hobbes... -- Patrick Ash patash at comcast.net This OS/2 system uptime is 13 days, 02:17 hours and 42 seconds _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:50:37 +0000 From: Patrick Ash Subject: Re: Building WGET I will give this a try. I decided to start over with my unixos2 environment and at this point the script installs everything, but perl fails with the "too many files open in the shell" error. I assume that everything else is ok, but have not given too much attention to things since I encountered that error yesterday. Pat On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:16:27 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> btw, I used gcc 3.0.3 to build 1.8.2, not sure if that will have any >> bearing on the outcome or not. > >I suppose it must do if you have a usable executable :-). > >Did you try using:- ? > > >build wget > >Here it creates a 'wget' file but the resultant wget.exe created by >emxbind does not work and I can't understand why... > -- Patrick Ash patash at comcast.net This OS/2 system uptime is 13 days, 02:43 hours and 05 seconds _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:15:46 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ux2 posix On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:58:55PM +0100, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: > > Can't find it in the mail archive.. > > currently it seem that the EMX headers are default.. is there a way to set > them to posix ?? That depends on when you set up the ux2bs environment... Currently the INCLUDE and LIB variables point to /usr and then /emx, but all the posix stuff has been extarcted to \posix2 so you need to manually copy the files to \usr. I had tried putting them in the correct location when building the environment but found the posix headers causing a number of problems, so I backed out that operation, but you can do it manually. Bear in mind that the posix headers are not a complete replacement for the emx headers, they rely on emx to provide missing functions. > With Regards > Bart van Leeuwen > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:21:29 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:18:14PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > >> And its *huge* compared to the 182 binary I have in my *real* system > >> tree that is only about 16K. > > > >Are you sure about its size ? :-)... > > OK - so I am out by a factor of ten :-) - Its still smaller than > ours. Yes, not only is it smaller, but it actually works! I'd like to know why this newly built version doesn't work. What's missing? > [D:\bin]ls -l wget.exe > -rwxrwx--a 167775 Aug 16 13:44 wget.exe > > [E:\unixos2\workdir\wget-1.8.2\src]!ls > ls -l wget.exe > -rwxrwx--a 267394 Feb 7 11:33 wget.exe As to how the VAC version got built, maybe the porter could give us some details... I suspect lxlite may be a contributory factor to the smaller size. > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:58:55 +0100 From: "Bart van Leeuwen" Subject: Re: ux2 posix Can't find it in the mail archive.. currently it seem that the EMX headers are default.. is there a way to set them to posix ?? With Regards Bart van Leeuwen _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:18:34 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building WGET Hi, > I suppose it could, but it shouldn't if used in the right place, i.e. > when linking executables. -Zexe is designed to avoid having to add the > ..exe extension and lays a zero-length dummy without .exe to keep > makefiles happy. I seem to remember that autoconf then tries to execute that zero-length dummy, fails, decides that it's running a cross-compiler and you can just forget about it's results even if it completes successfully (not to mention that "make install" will install the dummy file only). Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:28:57 -0500 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: Building WGET John Poltorak wrote: > > Ideally I would like to know how many files are actually open at the point > the error occurs, but I have no idea how to find out. Try Theseus System->General System->Open Files. h~ _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:39:04 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:25:57PM +0100, Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW) wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:18:34 +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > >I seem to remember that autoconf then tries to execute that zero-length > >dummy, fails, decides that it's running a cross-compiler and you can just > >forget about it's results even if it completes successfully (not to mention > >that "make install" will install the dummy file only). > > What can we do? > - modify the creation process of the makefile; it should consider > $(EXEEXT) EXEEXT was specifically developed for OS's like OS/2 and does provide exactly what we want in some apps such TEXINFO for example, which can be retrieved from gnu.org and built in the the normal Unix way without even needing autoconf to be run. Unfortunately it does this though some magic trickery which hardly anyone understands. We need to learn how this trickery can be used with apps like WGET and many others, and then a lot more apps would both build and install properly without requiring us to jump through several hoops. > Sebastian -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:45:35 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: EMX v. P2 headers conflict ? Hi, > > Well, there are three possibilities: > > 1. "man setmode" > > 2. "grep setmode /usr/include/* /usr/include/*/*" > > 3. "nm /usr/lib/*.a | grep setmode" > > Interestingly I used the 4th possibility: I wrote a small > autoconf script that did the job. ;-) Well, that burns down to either AC_CHECK_HEADER (i.e. 2) or AC_CHECK_LIB (i.e. 3), doesn't it? Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:58:07 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building WGET Addressed to: ux2bs at powerusersbbs.net posix2 at borneo.gmd.de Hi, > > #ifdef __EMX__ > > #define setsid() (0) > > #endif > > Although this may work, I think we need to ask whether setsid is defined > correctly with EMX or even Posix/2... I just looked through Posix/2 again and it looks like it's not implementing setsid either. There's a reference to _setsid in some (hopefully unused) daemon code, but that seems to be unresolved. Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:16:29 +0100 (CET) From: "Adrian Gschwend" Subject: Re: Symlinks On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:00:50 +0100, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: >is there any1 working on symlinks ? >and hw about developing a netdrive plugin for that ? Holger did most about that I guess but nothing public yet. About Netdrive plugin, that could work probably if unixos2 would be in a netdrive drive right? otherwise I don't think it's possible. cu Adrian -- Adrian Gschwend at netlabs.org ktk [a t] netlabs.org ------- Free Software for OS/2 and eCS http://www.netlabs.org _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:16:39 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: Symlinks On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:00:50 +0100, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: > >Hi all, > >is there any1 working on symlinks ? >and hw about developing a netdrive plugin for that ? Ted and Andrew wrote a "emx_emul module" for mailman, Andreas Buening is writing "os2links.a" for libunixos2 to port futils, and Holger Veit is planning a comprehensive solution, which perhaps will work on kernel layer for his LIBEMU. Sebastian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:25:57 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:18:34 +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: >I seem to remember that autoconf then tries to execute that zero-length >dummy, fails, decides that it's running a cross-compiler and you can just >forget about it's results even if it completes successfully (not to mention >that "make install" will install the dummy file only). What can we do? - replace the zero-length dummy with a dummy that executes correctly - wait for symlinks, and symlink the dummy to the real exe - make our shells execute exes without extension (after all OS/2 supports file types and classes; we were always proud of that) - modify the creation process of the makefile; it should consider $(EXEEXT) Sebastian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:33:19 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Building FILE Can someone try building FILE ? I'm sure it must be relatively easy to get it built, but it fails because a couple of types, namely int32_t and long_options, are missing. Can anyone suggest how to get them included? I asked before, but didn't manage to come up with a satisfactory solution. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 28 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:54:01 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: ux2 posix Hi, > Bear in mind that the posix headers are not a complete replacement for the > emx headers, they rely on emx to provide missing functions. Well, EMX is rock solid, so why should one replace it. Posix/2 is really just updating a few outdated implementations and adding a couple of missing functions, that's all it originally intended to do. Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 29 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:16:27 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:49:03AM +0000, Patrick Ash wrote: > Looking back at my old builds, I find that autoconf 2.13 seems to be > used for all of the configure scripts. not sure if I ran it or if the > original script was generated already. I did use -Zexe in 1.8.2, but > do not find it used for 1.8 or 1.8.1. At this point I am not sure if > I needed to use emxbind or not. I believe that I have at some time, > but I think the need for its use disappeared at some time as well. I know I managed to build some version with very little difficulty and I may well have used autoconf v2.13, but I've just tried building 1.8 and get this error:- gcc -I. -I. -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSYSTEM_WGETRC=\"/usr/local/etc/wgetrc\" -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/local/share/locale\" -O2 -Wall -Wno-implicit -c cmpt.c cmpt.c: In function `strerror': cmpt.c:44: conflicting types for `sys_errlist' u:\emx\include\stdlib.h:147: previous declaration of `sys_errlist' cmpt.c: At top level: cmpt.c:1234: conflicting types for `memmove' sysdep.h:170: previous declaration of `memmove' make[1]: *** [cmpt.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `U:/unixos2/workdir/wget-1.8/src' make: *** [src] Error 2 So it's a bit of a mystery as to just what I did do. > btw, I used gcc 3.0.3 to build 1.8.2, not sure if that will have any > bearing on the outcome or not. I suppose it must do if you have a usable executable :-). Did you try using:- ? build wget Here it creates a 'wget' file but the resultant wget.exe created by emxbind does not work and I can't understand why... > Pat > > -- > Patrick Ash > patash at comcast.net > > This OS/2 system uptime is 13 days, 01:41 hours and 31 seconds -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 30 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:21:03 -0500 From: Ted Sikora Subject: Warp Mints... Cool! http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/valentines/59de/ -- Ted Sikora tsikora at ntplx.net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 31 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:08:49 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:50:37PM +0000, Patrick Ash wrote: > I will give this a try. I decided to start over with my unixos2 > environment and at this point the script installs everything, but > perl fails with the "too many files open in the shell" error. I > assume that everything else is ok, but have not given too much > attention to things since I encountered that error yesterday. I got the same thing on one machine for some reason. Adding EMXOPT=-h1024 to the environment sorted it out though. Ideally I would like to know how many files are actually open at the point the error occurs, but I have no idea how to find out. > Pat > > > On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:16:27 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> btw, I used gcc 3.0.3 to build 1.8.2, not sure if that will have any > >> bearing on the outcome or not. > > > >I suppose it must do if you have a usable executable :-). > > > >Did you try using:- ? > > > > > >build wget > > > >Here it creates a 'wget' file but the resultant wget.exe created by > >emxbind does not work and I can't understand why... > > > > -- > Patrick Ash > patash at comcast.net > > This OS/2 system uptime is 13 days, 02:43 hours and 05 seconds > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 32 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:29:19 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: REGEX - please test On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:38:51AM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > Don't underestimate the dark side! The new GNU regex has already reached > > the 45 KB code limit (binary, not source code size!). And several > > GNU programs require the _GNU_ regex (Posix/2 contains BSD regex?). > > Just 20 of them would waste 1 MB of disk space if you had no dll. > > So what? After some cleaning up, I currently have 4.2 GB left for OS/2. It seems that Microsoft thinking is becoming all pervasive... Bloatware is good! > if that shouldn't be sufficient I can repartition and take something > from the 1GB I have left for Windows or the 1 GB left for Linux, as > I'll likely never need them. Do you really expect to scare anyone with > even 100 MB more or less? That isn't really the point. One of the reasons I like using OS/2, and I'm sure others agree, is that it is lean an efficient. Personally, I don't want bloatware and just because I have a spare GB of disk space doesn't mean I should try to fill it. I have systems which are memory constrained but they run OS/2 without any problems. I'd like to think that they could also run a few GNU utils without running out of resources. > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 33 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:31:00 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building WGET Hi, > with VisualAge > C++, and I beleive that this compiler creates more efficient code > than does gcc, especially 2.8.1. For 486, gcc is close to optimal when compiling C-code since at least gcc-2.5. Pentium and newer processor specific optimizations are a totally different story (and so is C++), but I have some doubts that IBM's compiler is doing a much better job in that respect as support for VAC++ was dropped at a time when OS/2 was still supported to run on 386 and up, wasn't it. > It also may have been processed with > something like lxlite before it was packaged for placement on hobbes. That's probably a better explanation. Also keep in mind that EMX adds yet another level of complexity between C code and the low level C-library. It's mostly handled in EMX' DLLs, but some things might also end up in generated code... > If one uses gcc, running emxbind -s file.exe can sometimes > dramatically reduce the size of the executables, depending on the > amount of symbols used in the code. For C++ code with complicated template constructs it can be as much as a _factor_ of 5 and even more. A more efficient name mangling scheme was one of the big improvements of gcc-3 over all earlier versions... Regards, - Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 34 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:35:48 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building WGET On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:44:02PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > EXEEXT was specifically developed for OS's like OS/2 and does provide > > exactly what we want in some apps such TEXINFO for example, which can be > > retrieved from gnu.org and built in the the normal Unix way without even > > needing autoconf to be run. > > > > Unfortunately it does this though some magic trickery which hardly anyone > > understands. > > Actually, it's not that complicated, I'll try to explain the basic idea: > > 1. If necessary convert "configure.in" to autoconf-2.5x format. > (There are still scripts for autoconf-2.13 out there). > 2. Add AC_EXEEXT into configure.in "at a suitable place" (looking at > configure.in from working packages might give an idea where that > suitable place is). This tells autoconf to insert a test for the > executable extension into the configure script and store its value > in an internal variable. > 3. Add at EXEEXT at or whatever at the right locations in Makefile.in > it exactly is (again, looking at Makefile.in from a working package > should clarify the details). Each occurence tells configure to insert > the value of that variable at that place in the generated Makefile. > 4. Rerun autoconf and test/improve the changes. > 5. Submit a patch to the package maintainer. > > Does that clarify the "magic trickery" a bit? Conceptually, it's really > easy, only the syntactic details can get confusing. ;-) I understand that it is *supposed* to be very simple and I just wish it would actually work as you have described. I just tried building GNU ED:- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/ed/ed-0.2.tar.gz This must be a really simple app to get right... Just going through normal routine of:- autoconf (v2.57) configure make make install built and installed all the files I needed, except I had an ed rather than ed.exe in \usr\local\bin. Emxbind fixed the file OK. Changing the two files you mentioned did *not* affect the final binary. There is still some magic missing. As an example of app which does work correctly, see WHICH:- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/which/which-2.14.tar.gz This does not even require AC_EXEEXT in configure.in. I think Makefile.in is the file which needs a bit more modification for the magic to work properly... > > Regards, > Stefan > > P.S.: Things get slightly more complicated, when automake comes into play > and some of the files above are auto-generated as well from other > source files, but the principle is the same: You just insert some marker > into automake's input files, so it knows that it should generate files > already containing the above stuff. > > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 35 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:44:02 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building WGET Hi, > EXEEXT was specifically developed for OS's like OS/2 and does provide > exactly what we want in some apps such TEXINFO for example, which can be > retrieved from gnu.org and built in the the normal Unix way without even > needing autoconf to be run. > > Unfortunately it does this though some magic trickery which hardly anyone > understands. Actually, it's not that complicated, I'll try to explain the basic idea: 1. If necessary convert "configure.in" to autoconf-2.5x format. (There are still scripts for autoconf-2.13 out there). 2. Add AC_EXEEXT into configure.in "at a suitable place" (looking at configure.in from working packages might give an idea where that suitable place is). This tells autoconf to insert a test for the executable extension into the configure script and store its value in an internal variable. 3. Add at EXEEXT at or whatever at the right locations in Makefile.in it exactly is (again, looking at Makefile.in from a working package should clarify the details). Each occurence tells configure to insert the value of that variable at that place in the generated Makefile. 4. Rerun autoconf and test/improve the changes. 5. Submit a patch to the package maintainer. Does that clarify the "magic trickery" a bit? Conceptually, it's really easy, only the syntactic details can get confusing. ;-) Regards, Stefan P.S.: Things get slightly more complicated, when automake comes into play and some of the files above are auto-generated as well from other source files, but the principle is the same: You just insert some marker into automake's input files, so it knows that it should generate files already containing the above stuff. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 36 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:47:05 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building WGET ** Reply to note from John Poltorak Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:08:49 +0000 > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:50:37PM +0000, Patrick Ash wrote: > > I will give this a try. I decided to start over with my unixos2 > > environment and at this point the script installs everything, but > > perl fails with the "too many files open in the shell" error. I > > assume that everything else is ok, but have not given too much > > attention to things since I encountered that error yesterday. > > I got the same thing on one machine for some reason. > > Adding EMXOPT=-h1024 to the environment sorted it out though. > > Ideally I would like to know how many files are actually open at the point > the error occurs, but I have no idea how to find out. I'm not exactly sure, but the "FILES=something" line in config.sys might be relevant as well. Over here, I have "FILES=80" and I seem to remember having had similar problems at the time when that was "FILES=40" (some years ago). HTH, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 37 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:55:28 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: REGEX - please test On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:40:53PM +0100, Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW) wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:25:29 +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > >Sure, I too want to have regex and lots of other stuff in a DLL, but do we > >really need dozens of DLLs, 30K each? One big c.DLL (or unixos2.dll or > >cExt.dll or whatever) would be _much_ better, IMHO. > > If we will have regex in cExt then we shouldn't introduce another > regex.dll. > Otherwise we would have the choice to deliver it with every application > (again waste of disk space), or promote is as a standard dll needed > like EMX runtime. But that would make no sense, once cExt exists and > has rexeg support. > So IMHO as short term solution, static linking should be preferred. Does that also apply for intl, z, crypto, ssl, jpeg, png, tiff dlls? You need some consistency here. I would prefer to provide DLL's but leave it up to the individual how they want to assemble things for themselves. > Sebastian -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 38 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 23:08:16 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: Warp Mints... Cool! On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:21:03 -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: >http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/valentines/59de/ at the bottom it asks: "Tell us your favorite OS. Take our 46.4-second survey!" Sebastian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 39 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:25:29 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building WGET > 3. Add at EXEEXT at or whatever at the right locations in Makefile.in > it exactly is (again, looking at Makefile.in from a working package > should clarify the details). (snipp) > > Does that clarify the "magic trickery" a bit? Conceptually, it's really > easy, only the syntactic details can get confusing. ;-) Apparently I got confused by syntactic details myself. That should have been: > 3. Add at EXEEXT at or whatever it exactly is at the right locations in > Makefile.in (again, looking at Makefile.in from a working package > should clarify the details). Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 40 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:25:29 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: REGEX - please test Hi, > It seems that Microsoft thinking is becoming all pervasive... > > Bloatware is good! Hey, I was _not_ taking about RAM usage, just about hard disk space. And when running 20 applications at the same time, I _won't_ care about 1 MB more or less memory, that is consumed. And if I'm running only one out of the relevant applications (not that many, after all), it makes no difference at all, whether some code is put into a DLL or not. > That isn't really the point. One of the reasons I like using OS/2, and I'm > sure others agree, is that it is lean an efficient. Sure. but another one of my reasons is that it's cleanly organized. That's something you loose if you put every function into its own DLL and put that somewhere in the libpath. I've done way to much DLL hunting in the past year, for my tastes (I want to run application xyz. Hm, that requires DLL's abc and def, where do I get these? ... half an hour later: OK found, it. Installing. Sh*t, DLL abc wants DLL lmn, let's restart the game. Having to get through _that_ under OS/2 really gets to me. I know that's something to expect on Linux, but I somehow always was spared that nonsense on OS/2. Please, can't it stay that way? Sure, I too want to have regex and lots of other stuff in a DLL, but do we really need dozens of DLLs, 30K each? One big c.DLL (or unixos2.dll or cExt.dll or whatever) would be _much_ better, IMHO. But that's going to need some time and I just don't want to system to get unusable just because some people are that impatient. Statically linking seems like a reasonable compromise for a "short" period of time, but that, of course, is just _my_ personal opinion, others seem to be thinking _vastly_ different. > Personally, I don't want bloatware and just because I have a spare GB of > disk space doesn't mean I should try to fill it. I have systems which are > memory constrained but they run OS/2 without any problems. I'd like to > think that they could also run a few GNU utils without running out of > resources. Running them shouldn't be the problem (see above). If it fits on the harddisk, all should be fine... Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 41 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 23:40:53 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW)" Subject: Re: REGEX - please test On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:25:29 +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: >Sure, I too want to have regex and lots of other stuff in a DLL, but do we >really need dozens of DLLs, 30K each? One big c.DLL (or unixos2.dll or >cExt.dll or whatever) would be _much_ better, IMHO. If we will have regex in cExt then we shouldn't introduce another regex.dll. Otherwise we would have the choice to deliver it with every application (again waste of disk space), or promote is as a standard dll needed like EMX runtime. But that would make no sense, once cExt exists and has rexeg support. So IMHO as short term solution, static linking should be preferred. Sebastian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs