Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 02:34:56 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 79 ************************************************** Saturday 15 February 2003 Number 79 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem : Dave Saville" 2 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : John Poltorak 3 Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem : John Poltorak 4 Need help getting MAN built : John Poltorak 5 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : John Poltorak 6 Re: ext2 , was: Need help getting MAN built : John Poltorak 7 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 8 Re: ext2 , was: Need help getting MAN built : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 9 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : John Poltorak 10 Re: ext2 , was: Need help getting MAN built : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 11 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 12 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 13 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : John Poltorak 14 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : John Poltorak 15 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 16 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : John Poltorak 17 Re: Build Testing : Maynard" 18 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 19 Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem : Dave Saville" 20 Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 21 Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem : Dave Saville" 22 Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem : John Poltorak 23 Re: Build Testing : Maynard" 24 Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem : John Poltorak 25 Re: Posix/2 : John Poltorak 26 Posix/2 : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 27 Re: Posix/2 : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:11:37 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem Below is an exchange with Ilya regarding problems I was having with makemaker. =========================== On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:52:24 -0800, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: >On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 03:21:58PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: >> [E:\tmp\Astro-Sunrise-0.05]perl makefile.pl > >It is Makefile.PL. os/2 is case insensitive. > >> Checking if your kit is complete... >> Looks good >> Have D:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/os2/Config.pm expected >> d:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/ >> os2/Config.pm >> Your perl and your Config.pm seem to have different ideas about the >> architecture they are running on. >> Perl thinks: [os2] >> Config says: [os2] >> This may or may not cause problems. Please check your installation of >> perl >> if you have problems building this extension. >> Note (probably harmless): No library found for -lsocket >> Note (probably harmless): No library found for -lm >> Note (probably harmless): No library found for -lbsd >> Writing Makefile for Astro::Sunrise >> >> Ilya, whats going on here? Is the have/expected line because of case? > >Looks so. Maybe your Config.pm has data in a wrong case? > >> And what about the architecture? > >I have no idea. You need to check the source code which checks this >(search for the text of the error message). > This is weird - so as it's perl that's ok :-) My environment setting was: set PERLLIB_PREFIX=e:/usr/lib/perl/lib;D:/usr/lib/perl/lib I changed it to set PERLLIB_PREFIX=e:/usr/lib/perl/lib;d:/usr/lib/perl/lib And *both* the above errors went away, but testperl was OK with either !! Took a look at makemaker.pm around lines 525 - 547. Makemaker.pm does not know that OS/2 is case insensitive - The test is if not win32 and lower case one = lower case the other - so it whinges - If it trips up on case in the perllib path it prints out the architecture from both - it's *not* saying the architecture mismatches which was how I was reading the error messages. Wonder what we need to do to fix this? Does it just need to set my $Is_Win32 = $^O eq 'os2'; After line 30 ? ============================================== John I was running testperl and it claims that I have modified D:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/Net/Config.pm All I did was move it from e to d. I did edit all e: to d: in D:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/os2/Config.pm but the one in Net has no drive references in it. When I complained to Ilya he said to ask you as I had built it with your system! -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:09:12 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:55:43PM -0500, Ted Sikora wrote: > > > Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > >>I'm also tempted to add 'cp gcc.exxe cc.exe' > >> > >>What does anyone think about that? > > > > > > That sounds like it might induce some configure > > scripts into not recognizing the compiler as > > actually being a GNU compiler, thus giving > > results on compiled code that are not quite > > optimal or even break compilation... > > > > No, I can't give any example, but I know that > > e.g. on (older) Solaris and SunOS versions cc > > is a built-in (_if_ it is installed at all, > > that is) pre-ANSI C compiler which is unusable > > by modern standards. > > > > My guess would be, that "cp gcc.exe cc.exe" > > would cause at least as many problems as it > > does solve. > > I been using these env variables which amount to the same thing. > This might be a better idea. > > SET CC=gcc > SET CXX=gcc This is already done CONFIG.SITE. However that would only solve problems where Makefiles use $CC. There are some which have 'cc' hard coded. In particular, I want to know what the best approach is for handling BYACC, whose Makefile contains these lines:- LINKER = cc all: $(PROGRAM) $(PROGRAM): $(OBJS) $(LIBS) at echo -n "Loading $(PROGRAM) ... " at $(LINKER) $(LDFLAGS) -o $(PROGRAM) $(OBJS) $(LIBS) at echo "done" How should I handle this if I have no 'cc'? > -- > Ted Sikora > tsikora at ntplx.net > > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:16:36 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 09:11:37AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > John > > I was running testperl and it claims that I have modified > D:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/Net/Config.pm > > All I did was move it from e to d. I did edit all e: to d: in > D:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/os2/Config.pm but the one in Net has no > drive references in it. When I complained to Ilya he said to ask you > as I had built it with your system! The current preferred method is to build with '-Dprefix=/usr', which means there should be no embedded drive letters, and should work on every drive. I'm not entirely sure how this can work, but I think as long as perl*.dll is on the libpath and your perl library is on the same drive then that is the key to it working. I would suggest you rebuild using this prefix and you shouldn't need to worry about embedded drive letters. > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:47:44 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Need help getting MAN built MAN is a bit of an oddball program and doesn't follow the usual build process. However, it is such an important program that we need to get it built. Can anyone have a look at it and see if the they can solve any of the problems which arise. If I try 'build man', I end up with:- Created Makefile and conf_script. Now do "make" and "make install". make cd src; ../conf_script Makefile SYS1003: The syntax of the command is incorrect. make: *** [src/Makefile] Error 1 cd src; ../conf_script Makefile SYS1003: The syntax of the command is incorrect. make: *** [src/Makefile] Error 1 Any ideas on what is wrong here? -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:44:55 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:04:51PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > some which have 'cc' hard coded. In particular, I want to know what the > > best approach is for handling BYACC, whose Makefile contains these lines:- > > > > > > LINKER = cc > > > > all: $(PROGRAM) > > > > $(PROGRAM): $(OBJS) $(LIBS) > > at echo -n "Loading $(PROGRAM) ... " > > at $(LINKER) $(LDFLAGS) -o $(PROGRAM) $(OBJS) $(LIBS) > > at echo "done" > > > > > > How should I handle this if I have no 'cc'? > > The more I read about those BYACC problems, the more I'm tempted > to answer questions about the best way to handle it by "just drop > it and use bison". ;-) There are no BYACC problems as such. They only question is how to make the Makefile work. As it stands it won't run because we don't have a cc.exe, but copying gcc.exe as cc.exe builds it with no problems... Maybe I should simply patch the Makefile and use $CC... In any case, BYACC is required to build FLEX and FLEX is required for various other programs. BISON depends on several programs already being in place before it can be built, so BYACC is an absolute requirement IMV. > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:56:14 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ext2 , was: Need help getting MAN built On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 12:09:51PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > Speaking of man-pages: > It was very convenient to be able to read the man-pages of my > Linux-installation under OS/2. Which version of MAN do you use? > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:04:51 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update > some which have 'cc' hard coded. In particular, I want to know what the > best approach is for handling BYACC, whose Makefile contains these lines:- > > > LINKER = cc > > all: $(PROGRAM) > > $(PROGRAM): $(OBJS) $(LIBS) > at echo -n "Loading $(PROGRAM) ... " > at $(LINKER) $(LDFLAGS) -o $(PROGRAM) $(OBJS) $(LIBS) > at echo "done" > > > How should I handle this if I have no 'cc'? The more I read about those BYACC problems, the more I'm tempted to answer questions about the best way to handle it by "just drop it and use bison". ;-) Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:09:51 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: ext2 , was: Need help getting MAN built Hi, Speaking of man-pages: It was very convenient to be able to read the man-pages of my Linux-installation under OS/2. Since I just updated to eCS, the ability to access ext2-drives is gone for now. Is there already a newer version of that file system which co-operates with newer OS/2 versions? So far, I didn't care much about that problem and probably will have missed any potential announcement. Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:00:50 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 01:23:09PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > In any case, BYACC is required to build FLEX and FLEX is required for > > various other programs. > > > > BISON depends on several programs already being in place before it can be > > built, so BYACC is an absolute requirement IMV. > > But you do realize that flex (i.e. the GNU version of lex) is optimized > for use with the GNU version of yacc (aka bison), don't you? No. I don't really know much about flex at all, apart from knowing that I need it to build som apps. BTW FLEX is not a GNU program AFAICT. Flex carries the copyright used for BSD software, slightly modified because it originated at the Lawrence Berkeley (not Livermore!) Laboratory, which operates under a contract with the Department of Energy: Copyright (c) 1990 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. > I guess, bison comes with the normal GNU amout of documentation (info pages > and the like, which also give a quite good tutorial on what yacc/bison are > about and how to use it). Are those the additional dependencies over byacc? The dependecies I'm referring to are the GNU Build System - Autoconf, Automake, Perl etc... BYACC only needs cc. So BYACC is an essential requirement in the early stages of updating the build system. Once it has been updated, the BISON can be built, and in fact builds without any problems. Are suggesting that once BISON is available then it should replace BYACC? > From the code point of view, I don't see, which header files/libraries > bison could possibly use in addition to those required by byacc as well. > Oh, wait, maybe something like long options? Hmmm... Do you think BISON would help resolve problems with long options? > Regards, > Stefan > > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:23:08 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: ext2 , was: Need help getting MAN built > Which version of MAN do you use? 1.5g (one of those japanese ports, IIRC). Why? Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:23:09 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update Hi, > In any case, BYACC is required to build FLEX and FLEX is required for > various other programs. > > BISON depends on several programs already being in place before it can be > built, so BYACC is an absolute requirement IMV. But you do realize that flex (i.e. the GNU version of lex) is optimized for use with the GNU version of yacc (aka bison), don't you? I guess, bison comes with the normal GNU amout of documentation (info pages and the like, which also give a quite good tutorial on what yacc/bison are about and how to use it). Are those the additional dependencies over byacc? From the code point of view, I don't see, which header files/libraries bison could possibly use in addition to those required by byacc as well. Oh, wait, maybe something like long options? Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:33:08 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update Hi, > BTW FLEX is not a GNU program AFAICT. Apparently, you're right. How could I have missed that for almost 10 years? > The dependecies I'm referring to are the GNU Build System - Autoconf, > Automake, Perl etc... BYACC only needs cc. But given that we need the build system anyway, what's the real problem with that requirement? BTW, I always wonder what Perl is actually needed for in that build system. Can you give some details/examples? Is that for automake and/or libtool? > Are suggesting that once BISON is > available then it should replace BYACC? I don't really know. Personally, I've always been using bison and ignored (b)yacc even on systems where it was always. But some people seem to have a strong preference for (b)yacc, so if we can offer the possibility to use it, why not? > Hmmm... Do you think BISON would help resolve problems with long options? No, sorry. I though that BISON might depend on that same extension for long options that caused some problems with a different package... Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:41:54 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:33:08PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > > The dependecies I'm referring to are the GNU Build System - Autoconf, > > Automake, Perl etc... BYACC only needs cc. > > But given that we need the build system anyway, what's the real problem > with that requirement? BTW, I always wonder what Perl is actually needed > for in that build system. Can you give some details/examples? head -1 autoheader (or anything except autoconf itself) :- #! c:/usr/bin/perl.exe > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:30:38 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:20:32PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > head -1 autoheader (or anything except autoconf itself) :- > > > > #! c:/usr/bin/perl.exe > > > > I see. Autoconf actually was the only one of those tools that I > ever needed to run myself ... ;-) > > Something else: I just added support for getopt_long to Posix/2 and > it seems to work fine (i.e. it compiles ;-) ). Currently struggling with > some minor remaining problems in compiling cExt.a/lib itself and then > I'll check what happens to Perl ... Could you check to see if it helps with FILE first:- ? ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/file-3.39.tar.gz FILE is much smaller and easier to build than PERL, and I'm sure it should be possible to build it using standard headers. > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:20:32 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update Hi, > head -1 autoheader (or anything except autoconf itself) :- > > #! c:/usr/bin/perl.exe > I see. Autoconf actually was the only one of those tools that I ever needed to run myself ... ;-) Something else: I just added support for getopt_long to Posix/2 and it seems to work fine (i.e. it compiles ;-) ). Currently struggling with some minor remaining problems in compiling cExt.a/lib itself and then I'll check what happens to Perl ... Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:09:31 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:57:34PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > > ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/file-3.39.tar.gz > > > > FILE is much smaller and easier to build than PERL, and I'm sure it should > > be possible to build it using standard headers. > > Good hint. It immediately found two errors (one requiring rebuilding > my "private" gcc.exe, one fixing a bug in that long option handling code. > > BTW, did you notice that there's also file-3.40 which has a workaround for > missing long option support? I wasn't aware of that. It's very recent - maybe it has come about as the result of an email exchange I had with the author. I'll give it a try shortly. > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:51:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: Build Testing Here's what I'm working with as a starter: inserted into the beginning of the finish() routine in build.sh: if test -f $BLD_HOME/scripts/test/$PKG; then . $BLD_HOME/scripts/test/$PKG >$BLD_HOME/status/$PKG || echo "$PKG failed" >> $BLD_HOME/lib/build.err && exit else $PKG --version >$BLD_HOME/status/$PKG || echo "$PKG failed" >>$BLD_HOME/lib/build.err && exit fi In case of failed test, I'm not sure to where 'exit' returns control; if control remains in build.sh then the next instruction is 'exit 1' I don't like busting out of procedures in this manner however; I prefer a function which returns a value, in this case true|false so that it can be called as 'if success then glee else abort' but I have to hand this level of shell scripting to you folks. I'm marching through update_base.cmd one line at a time, creating /scripts/test functions, and would welcome suggestions for improving the above. Thanks, -- Maynard _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:57:34 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update Hi, > ftp://ftp.astron.com/pub/file/file-3.39.tar.gz > > FILE is much smaller and easier to build than PERL, and I'm sure it should > be possible to build it using standard headers. Good hint. It immediately found two errors (one requiring rebuilding my "private" gcc.exe, one fixing a bug in that long option handling code. BTW, did you notice that there's also file-3.40 which has a workaround for missing long option support? Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:08:26 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:16:36 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 09:11:37AM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > >> John >> >> I was running testperl and it claims that I have modified >> D:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/Net/Config.pm >> >> All I did was move it from e to d. I did edit all e: to d: in >> D:/usr/lib/perl/lib/5.8.0/os2/Config.pm but the one in Net has no >> drive references in it. When I complained to Ilya he said to ask you >> as I had built it with your system! > > >The current preferred method is to build with '-Dprefix=/usr', which means >there should be no embedded drive letters, and should work on every drive. >I'm not entirely sure how this can work, but I think as long as perl*.dll >is on the libpath and your perl library is on the same drive then that is >the key to it working. > >I would suggest you rebuild using this prefix and you shouldn't need to >worry about embedded drive letters. This gets odder :-) I built before without the prefix. I got /usr/lib/perl/lib......... And in /usr/bin ls -l /usr/bin/pe* -rwxrwx--a 18120 Feb 15 13:23 perl.exe With a drive less prefix I got /usr/lib/perl5.......... And in /usr/bin ls -l pe* -rwxrwx--a 18120 Feb 16 15:46 perl.exe -rwxrwx--a 18120 Feb 16 14:45 perl5.8.0.exe -rw-rw---a 38005 Feb 16 14:08 perlbug -rw-rw---a 19687 Feb 16 14:08 perlcc -rw-rw---a 22611 Feb 16 14:08 perldoc -rw-rw---a 12077 Feb 16 14:08 perlivp ???? -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:39:32 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: [Mailman-os2] Mailman 2.1.1 update Hi, > I wasn't aware of that. It's very recent - maybe it has come about as the > result of an email exchange I had with the author. Currently, it looks like it does something _very_ unhealthy: It's redefining stuff that os2emx.h uses as type names to numbers by "#define" ... :-( Changing the include order might help. Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:46:53 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem FWIW - Been digging in the testperl script. That "Apparently you edited ..........Net/Config.pm'}" message is because there is a hard coded address in the test harness: elsif ($NetConfig{inet_domain} ne 'tusik.hip.berkeley.edu') { -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:12:41 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:08:26PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:16:36 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >I would suggest you rebuild using this prefix and you shouldn't need to > >worry about embedded drive letters. > > This gets odder :-) > > I built before without the prefix. I got > > /usr/lib/perl/lib......... > And in /usr/bin > > ls -l /usr/bin/pe* > > -rwxrwx--a 18120 Feb 15 13:23 perl.exe As part of the build cmd perl.exe gets copied to \usr\bin so that it is on the path. > With a drive less prefix I got > > /usr/lib/perl5.......... This is the standard default location for Perl, but all the binaries, including SHELL/PERL scripts get dumped in \usr\bin, as you can see. > And in /usr/bin > ls -l pe* > > -rwxrwx--a 18120 Feb 16 15:46 perl.exe > -rwxrwx--a 18120 Feb 16 14:45 perl5.8.0.exe > -rw-rw---a 38005 Feb 16 14:08 perlbug > -rw-rw---a 19687 Feb 16 14:08 perlcc > -rw-rw---a 22611 Feb 16 14:08 perldoc > -rw-rw---a 12077 Feb 16 14:08 perlivp > > > ???? Personally, I think it's a bit of a mess and would prefer all these Perl binaries to go somewhere else... > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:17:03 -0600 (CST) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: Build Testing update: by now I've put the following at the end of finish() in build.sh echo testing $PKG installation ... if test -f $BLD_HOME/scripts/test/$PKG; then #this is correct for success; haven't tested failure yet . $BLD_HOME/scripts/test/$PKG |tee $BLD_HOME/status/$PKG || (echo "$PKG failed" |tee -a $BLD_HOME/lib/build.err && exit); else #this is correct for failure; haven't tested success yet $PKG --version > $BLD_HOME/status/$PKG || (echo "$PKG failed" |tee -a $BLD_HOME/lib/build.err); exit fi echo ...success!! [apparently] echo end _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:10:21 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: FYI makemaker problem - was perl module problem On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:46:53PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > FWIW - Been digging in the testperl script. That "Apparently you > edited ..........Net/Config.pm'}" message is because there is a hard > coded address in the test harness: > > elsif ($NetConfig{inet_domain} ne 'tusik.hip.berkeley.edu') { Where exactly is this? > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:37:53 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Posix/2 On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:30:43PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > Although I didn't yet have a chance to check what it does for Perl, > I'd rather upload what I currently have instead of postponing it > one more week. Remember where you suggested to upload the binary > last time? Because I don't, any more (apparently, not even my > mailbox). :-( ftp://os2ports.com/incoming/ Will you leave your patched gcc.exe there too? > Regards, > Stefan > > -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:30:43 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Posix/2 Hi, Although I didn't yet have a chance to check what it does for Perl, I'd rather upload what I currently have instead of postponing it one more week. Remember where you suggested to upload the binary last time? Because I don't, any more (apparently, not even my mailbox). :-( Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:48:27 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Posix/2 Hi, > ftp://os2ports.com/incoming/ > > > Will you leave your patched gcc.exe there too? Yes. And a slightly modified one compared to what you have ... Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at powerusersbbs.net http://powerusersbbs.net/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs