Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:36:02 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 91 ************************************************** Thursday 27 February 2003 Number 91 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Problem building FILE : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 2 New UX2BS : John Poltorak 3 Re: New UX2BS : Dave Saville" 4 Re: New UX2BS : Dave Saville" 5 Re: New UX2BS : John Poltorak 6 Re: New UX2BS : Dave Saville" 7 Re: New UX2BS : John Poltorak 8 Re: New UX2BS : John Poltorak 9 FILE utility builds : John Poltorak 10 Re: FILE utility builds : Dave Saville" 11 Re: New UX2BS : Maynard" 12 Re: New UX2BS - build_perl.cmd : Maynard" 13 Re: SED builds : John Poltorak 14 GETTEXT install failure : John Poltorak 15 Re: New UX2BS : Maynard" 16 Re: SED builds : Csaba 17 Argh, link386 not found :-( : Csaba 18 Re: SED builds : Andreas Buening 19 Re: GETTEXT install failure : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:26:52 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Problem building FILE Hi, > > OK I've done that, but am left with:- > > > > Undefined symbol _os2_apptype. > > > > Any ideas on what is missing? > > I found the program apptype.c in an OS/2 port of FILE, and after adding > that and making a few changes to the Makefile, it worked. > > Is this a program you needed to add? Now that I can look up what I really did, I'm able to tell you that for a quick hack, I just removed the call to os2_apptype from file.c. ;-) Thanks for finding the clean solution for that problem. :-) Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:12 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: New UX2BS I have updated UX2BS a little to more fully incorporate Posix/2. At the same time I have changed the directory structure around a little so that all the original baseline programs are installed under \unixos2 which means there won't be any danger of overwriting an existing EMX installation in \emx. Whilst Posix/2 is proving to be pretty useful, there are still some programs which won't build with it, therefor a new feature is a Posix/2 exclusion file - p2_exc.lst which contains files which won't currently build with a Posix/2 environment. All this means is that a default environment is set up and if an app does not appear in the file, the Posix/2 components are added to three variables. There are also a few other little minor changes. Before I replace the current set of scripts, I would like some feedback on how well the new set works. If you want to give things a try, then you need to grab this new bootstrap program and run it:- wget ftp://unixos2: at 213.152.37.92/pub/unixos2/build_system.test/lib/ux2_bootstrap.cmd Please let me know how you get on. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:15:19 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: New UX2BS On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:12 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >If you want to give things a try, then you need to grab this new bootstrap >program and run it:- > Just starting from a clean disc apart from the archives. -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:23:57 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: New UX2BS Initial start throws lots of file errors - where's the log? Before when I built perl I kept getting popups for F: not ready. Since then I have installed another hard drive. Guess what? I now get them for G: Its a USB removable that does not exist. -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:25:32 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: New UX2BS On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:15:19PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:12 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >If you want to give things a try, then you need to grab this new bootstrap > >program and run it:- > > > > Just starting from a clean disc apart from the archives. You may consider changing build_perl.cmd which I changed slightly to explicitly use certain speific locations. At the moment I have it set like this:- sh Configure -des -Dprefix=/usr -Dstartperl=#!perl -Dscriptdir=/usr/local/perl/bin -Dman1dir=/usr/local/share/perl/man/man1 I put it scriptdir because I didn't want /usr/bin clogged up with Perl binaries. I'm not sure what a suitable alternative would be... > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:54:02 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: New UX2BS On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:25:32 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:15:19PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:12 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >If you want to give things a try, then you need to grab this new bootstrap >> >program and run it:- >> > >> >> Just starting from a clean disc apart from the archives. > >You may consider changing build_perl.cmd which I changed slightly to >explicitly use certain speific locations. > Actually the clean disc was not as clean as I thought :-) The phantom disc problem is between these two lines of log: Which of these apply, if any? [os2] !!! Apparently there is no need to patch Configure. I put bootstrap thru tee and the log looks good so far. Half way thru perl build. -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:54:20 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: New UX2BS On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:23:57PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > Initial start throws lots of file errors - where's the log? Any idea why or where this happens? Unfortunately there is no log until the Perl build starts. > Before when I built perl I kept getting popups for F: not ready. > Since then I have installed another hard drive. Guess what? I now get > them for G: Its a USB removable that does not exist. I wonder if this is related to sh.exe... I have noticed similar problems on occasion. > > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:03:02 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: New UX2BS On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:54:02PM +0000, Dave Saville wrote: > Actually the clean disc was not as clean as I thought :-) > > The phantom disc problem is between these two lines of log: > > Which of these apply, if any? [os2] > !!! Apparently there is no need to patch Configure. > > I put bootstrap thru tee and the log looks good so far. Half way thru > perl build. Unfortunately, I can't use tee as part of the initial install because it is not known to be available. In you case, be prepared for a huge logfile, since it is likely to include perl.log as well as a number of other logs. In this new initial install I have tagged on update_base to the end of ux2_inst so it ought to build a number of essential apps in addition to Perl at the outset, and so probably take twice as long as normal, so be warned. It will also make your TEE'd log very big. > -- > Regards > > Dave Saville -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:02:49 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: FILE utility builds Thanks to some patches provided by Stefan as well as the addition of a missing source file, the very useful FILE utility (v3.400 will now build using UX2BS. For those that have never come across it, FILE attempts to identify the filetype of a given file using its own database of file signatures in a file called MAGIC. A question remains as to where is the preferred location for this file... In previous OS/2 ports it has been located in %ETC%, but I'm not sure if the preferred location should be /usr/share... If anyone has a Unix system available with this utility installed, could you tell me where MAGIC is kept? -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:12:38 +0000 (GMT) From: "Dave Saville" Subject: Re: FILE utility builds On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:02:49 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > >Thanks to some patches provided by Stefan as well as the addition of a >missing source file, the very useful FILE utility (v3.400 will now build >using UX2BS. > > >For those that have never come across it, FILE attempts to identify the >filetype of a given file using its own database of file signatures in a >file called MAGIC. > >A question remains as to where is the preferred location for this file... > >In previous OS/2 ports it has been located in %ETC%, but I'm not sure if >the preferred location should be /usr/share... > >If anyone has a Unix system available with this utility installed, could >you tell me where MAGIC is kept? Solaris man page for file says /etc - and that's where it is :-) -- Regards Dave Saville _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:13:52 -0600 (CST) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: New UX2BS On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:12 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >Please let me know how you get on. ux2_bootstrap.cmd: REM if exist rsync.exe goto fetch rsync --version >nul && goto fetch the above works better to use existing rsync on path without retrieving a duplicate by ftp. rsync then retrieves a duplicate \unixos2\lib\rsync.exe and a duplicate \unixos2\lib\wget.exe these programs are known to exist on the system by the time rsync runs. ------------------------------------------- ux2_inst.cmd: you still haven't corrected or defended your unnecessarily recursive definition of set bld_home=%bldrt%/%bld_home% but perhaps it never ever will be useful to anybody to run ux2_inst.cmd from the command line separate from being called by the bootstrapper. I used to think it would be important for updates, but I'll reconsider it. ---------------------------------- the bootstrap/install completed successfully; though a dowload of tee (or otherwise assuring it on path) and use in logging would be a big asset. -- Maynard _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:42:22 -0600 (CST) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: New UX2BS - build_perl.cmd build_perl.cmd: echo ************pausing before running make test************ù pauseù WHY? makes for very poor unattended performance ;-} ------------------------------------------------------------- -- Maynard _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:02:41 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: SED builds On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:50:09PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > I've just managed to build SED v4.05, but it's absolutely ENORMOUS! > > > > The one in the baseline toolset is only 17kB, but the one I've just built > > is 256kB!! They are different versions and the old one uses a REGEX DLL > > but still shouldn't account for such a huge size increase. > > > > Is this just due to code bloat? > > My version has 55296 bytes. The extra 40 KB are due to the new > regex which is now linked statically. 4.05 doesn't support an > external regex any more. But for the extra 200 KB ... what > exactly did you do? I just ran:- build sed and out popped a huge sed.exe. How can I tell why it is so big? I just tried it again a few minutes ago and it came out just as big. Maybe it's because of included gettext... > > Bye, > Andreas > > -- > One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, > One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them > In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:18:52 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: GETTEXT install failure GETTEXT v0.11.5 appears to build OK without any problems, apart from minor things like this:- u:/unixos2/workdir/gettext-0.11.5 Using:- autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.57 (release for OS/2) configure.in:7: warning: do not use m4_patsubst: use patsubst or m4_bpatsubst configure.in:265: warning: do not use m4_regexp: use regexp or m4_bregexp configure.in:229: error: do not use LIBOBJS directly, use AC_LIBOBJ (see section `AC_LIBOBJ vs LIBOBJS' If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. See the Autoconf documentation. What a relief to have it building so easily after so much time jumping through countless hoops in the past. The only real problem is with the installation, at least all the binaries which fail with errors like this:- u:/bin/sh ../mkinstalldirs u:/usr/bin u:/bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe gettext.exe u:/usr/bin/gettext.exe u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe gettext.exe u:/usr/bin/gettext.exe u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe: gettext.exe: No such file or directory u:/bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe ngettext.exe u:/usr/bin/ngettext.exe u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe ngettext.exe u:/usr/bin/ngettext.exe u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe: ngettext.exe: No such file or directory It seems the that the CWD is wrongly set at this point... How can I display where it is when this happens? The binaries are built in src\.libs. Is this the location one would expect them to be built in? -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:12:00 -0600 (CST) From: "Maynard" Subject: Re: New UX2BS On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:37:12 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >Please let me know how you get on. in spite of the following, it appears that byacc actually succeeded needed to change scripts\test\byacc to: test yacc from: yacc --version [X:\unixos2\lib]type build.err byacc failed Directory of X:\unixos2\status presence of nonzero length file indicates successful build 2-16-03 3:24p 0 . 2-16-03 3:24p 0 .. 2-28-03 7:57p 32 0 autoconf-2.13 2-28-03 7:57p 361 0 make-3.76.1 2-28-03 7:57p 322 0 autoconf-2.50 2-28-03 7:57p 289 0 automake-1.4-p5 2-28-03 7:59p 361 0 make 2-28-03 8:00p 0 0 byacc 2-28-03 8:01p 20 0 flex 2-28-03 8:08p 32 0 ncurses 2-28-03 8:09p 301 0 autoconf 2-28-03 8:22p 34 0 gettext 2-28-03 8:26p 260 0 texinfo 2-28-03 8:26p 277 0 automake 2-28-03 8:27p 32 0 regex 2-28-03 8:27p 30 0 termcap 2-28-03 8:28p 262 0 less _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:22:15 +0000 From: Csaba Subject: Re: SED builds Hello John, Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 8:00:42 PM, you wrote: JP> I've just managed to build SED v4.05, but it's absolutely ENORMOUS! JP> The one in the baseline toolset is only 17kB, but the one I've just built JP> is 256kB!! They are different versions and the old one uses a REGEX DLL JP> but still shouldn't account for such a huge size increase. JP> Is this just due to code bloat? Did you strip the binary ? Debug info can get big. -- Csaba mailto:adwx88 at uk.uumail.com Ceci n'est pas un .signature! _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:38:26 +0000 From: Csaba Subject: Argh, link386 not found :-( Building Perl bombed out because Configure tried to run gcc with -Zomf, which needs link386. I do have link386 in C:\os2tk45\bin (I remember this being discussed but I deleted the mail) I see that ux2_inst whacks the path :-( I copied link386 to c:\os2, that seems to survive :-) I'm running ux2_bootstrap again... -- Csaba mailto:adwx88 at uk.uumail.com _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:27:50 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: SED builds John Poltorak wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:50:09PM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: [huge sed.exe] > > My version has 55296 bytes. The extra 40 KB are due to the new > > regex which is now linked statically. 4.05 doesn't support an > > external regex any more. But for the extra 200 KB ... what > > exactly did you do? > > I just ran:- > > build sed > > and out popped a huge sed.exe. How can I tell why it is so big? > > I just tried it again a few minutes ago and it came out just as big. > > Maybe it's because of included gettext... Which options and which flags did you use? config.log should tell. Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:27:55 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: GETTEXT install failure John Poltorak wrote: > > GETTEXT v0.11.5 appears to build OK without any problems, apart from minor > things like this:- > > u:/unixos2/workdir/gettext-0.11.5 > Using:- autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.57 (release for OS/2) > configure.in:7: warning: do not use m4_patsubst: use patsubst or m4_bpatsubst > configure.in:265: warning: do not use m4_regexp: use regexp or m4_bregexp > configure.in:229: error: do not use LIBOBJS directly, use AC_LIBOBJ (see section `AC_LIBOBJ vs LIBOBJS' > If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. > See the Autoconf documentation. The maintainer should update configure.in. Usually you can ignore this. [snip] > u:/bin/sh ../mkinstalldirs u:/usr/bin > u:/bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe gettext.exe u:/usr/bin/gettext.exe > u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe gettext.exe u:/usr/bin/gettext.exe > u:/unixos2/bin/install.exe: gettext.exe: No such file or directory [snip] > The binaries are built in src\.libs. Is this the location one would expect > them to be built in? No. Should be in src. Which gettext source did you use and what exactly did you do? Bye, Andreas -- One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs