Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 02:40:38 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 126 ************************************************** Saturday 05 April 2003 Number 126 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 New Apache : John Poltorak 2 Re: Suggested changes to build.sh : sma at sohnen-moe.com 3 Enabling INFODIR : John Poltorak 4 Re: Suggested changes to build.sh : John Poltorak 5 Re: Building GMP (GNU MP) : John Poltorak 6 Re: Suggested changes to build.sh : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 10:46:30 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: New Apache The latest Apache source has just been released and is available here:- http://apache.secsup.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2.0.45.tar.gz Accompanying the announcement there is the following note:- OS2 users; note that Apache 2.0 versions *including* 2.0.45 still have a Denial of Service vulnerability that was identified and reported by Robert Howard that will fixed with the release of 2.0.46, but is too important to delay announcement today. The patch http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/apr/file_io/os2/filestat.c.diff?r1=1.34& r2=1.35 must be applied before building on OS2. This patch will already be applied to all OS2 binaries released for Apache 2.0.45. [http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2003-0134] Can someone try building this? It shouldn't be too difficult since a binary package for OS/2 is available. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 11:47:33 -0700 From: sma at sohnen-moe.com Subject: Re: Suggested changes to build.sh >Actually, I had already put some additional checks into build.sh but >they had only been in a test version. > >Could you have a look at the latest version? > Sure. Where is it? _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 12:06:47 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Enabling INFODIR Some GNU apps, such as m4, do not accept --infodir as a configure option. How do I go about enabling such an option? I suspect it only needs a minor tweak to Makefile.in, but I don't know how to do it. Any suggestions? -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 12:13:17 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Suggested changes to build.sh On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 01:14:52PM -0700, sma at sohnen-moe.com wrote: > Hello, > Attached is a modified build.sh. The added changes are either error > checking or more informational output. > The error checks stop the build if something does not go well, like > configure failing, or build.table has bogus info, or make stops > unexpectedly, etc. Actually, I had already put some additional checks into build.sh but they had only been in a test version. Could you have a look at the latest version? -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:53:24 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building GMP (GNU MP) On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 11:13:26PM +0200, Sebastian Wittmeier (ShadoW) wrote: > On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 13:00:11 -0700, sma at sohnen-moe.com wrote: > > The command line is huge: 5095 characters long. However, this seems > >not to matter when cd'ing to the build dir and running make directly. > > Sometimes (probably not in this case) a second make call succeeds in > spite of errors in the first run, because a (corrupt) output file has > begun to be built. This seems to happen in the case of Make. If you look at update_base.cmd you will see the way Make is built is a bit of a kludge. I'd like to be able to sort this out, but don't really know what is wrong. > You are reworking build.sh. I have a suggestion: > To ease bug tracking, could there be an option to stop build.sh at some > point, or execute only individual build steps? > Subsequent steps could mess up the working directory. I'd be interested in any ways to ease bug tracking within build.sh, but remember that the bulk of the shell script is simply concerned with with establishing the correct environment before attempting to run autoconf, configure & Make. It has been updated to trap errors related to bad retrievals or incomplete extraction of archives. > Sebastian -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 20:18:40 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Suggested changes to build.sh On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 11:47:33AM -0700, sma at sohnen-moe.com wrote: > > >Actually, I had already put some additional checks into build.sh but > >they had only been in a test version. > > > >Could you have a look at the latest version? > > > Sure. Where is it? Just run an RSYNC refresh and you should grab any updated files. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs