Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 02:40:45 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 129 ************************************************** Tuesday 08 April 2003 Number 129 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: UX2BS review : Bart van Leeuwen" 2 Re: UX2BS review : Henry Sobotka 3 Re: GOCR : sma at sohnen-moe.com 4 M4 build problem : sma at sohnen-moe.com 5 Re: UX2BS review : John Poltorak 6 Re: UX2BS review : John Poltorak 7 Re: GOCR : sma at sohnen-moe.com 8 Re: UX2BS review : sma at sohnen-moe.com 9 Re: UX2BS review : sma at sohnen-moe.com 10 Re: UX2BS review : Bart van Leeuwen" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:00:11 +0100 From: "Bart van Leeuwen" Subject: Re: UX2BS review Hi, I'm using unixos2 to build the isc dhcp client (http://www.isc.org ) with succes now, it builds compiles and works inside the unixos2 tree I'm writting modifications to make it run outside the tree and I convert the sh script to a rexx script to make it more usable on OS/2 during this process of trying and building, and obviously porting I needed acces to the real OS/2 toolkit, since the emx headers turned out to be not correct/incomplete further I had to make some stub functions for symlink stuff my question here is how to cope with stuff like that, has anyone thought about it ? escpecialy when doing lowlevel tcpip stuff, the OS/2 way is somewhat different from the unix way in the emx headers the ioctls are not defined for 'compatibility' but without them you can't do half of it. so we end up with what this project was up against.. everyone has its own build environment. please some reaction/tips With Regards Bart van Leeuwen _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 13:08:27 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: UX2BS review John Poltorak wrote: > > There's obviously a problem in that not everyone has the OS/2 toolkit. It > isn't freely available AFAIK... Or is it? Maybe I should try incorporating > it into UX2BS? It's "free" with eCS or SWC OS/2. The headers are also full of ^Z's that the gcc 3.2.1 preprocessor chokes on so you might want to clean that up before adding them to the tree. h~ _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 15:27:34 -0700 From: sma at sohnen-moe.com Subject: Re: GOCR >GOCR is the GNU Optical Character Recognition program. > >Anyone tried building it? > Yes. I had to delete a file, make.bat, from the distribution. That caused some peculiar behavior. It detected but did not use ac_executable_suffix. Or it determined a .exe is required. Either way I had to modify src/Makefile to add the .exe suffix to PROGRAM. It built and installed correctly after that. It also built with gcc v3.2.1. :-) I don't have a clue how to modify configure and src/Makefile.in to automatically use a .exe suffix. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:28:58 -0700 From: sma at sohnen-moe.com Subject: M4 build problem Hello, The build pre-process modifications for m4 seem incomplete. I decided to rebuld it for some reason and it did not proceed smoothly. The particular problem is the definition of "ar" in lib/Makefile.in: it is AR = ar. Even though the top level make is given "AR=emxomfar", this is not relevant in lib since AR is hardcoded to "ar". _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:40:58 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: UX2BS review On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:00:11AM +0100, Bart van Leeuwen wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm using unixos2 to build the isc dhcp client (http://www.isc.org ) with > succes now, it builds compiles and works inside the unixos2 tree > I'm writting modifications to make it run outside the tree and I convert > the sh script to a rexx script to make it more usable on OS/2 > > during this process of trying and building, and obviously porting I needed > acces to the real OS/2 toolkit, since the emx headers turned out to be not > correct/incomplete > further I had to make some stub functions for symlink stuff > > my question here is how to cope with stuff like that, has anyone thought > about it ? escpecialy when doing lowlevel tcpip stuff, the OS/2 way is > somewhat different from the unix way > in the emx headers the ioctls are not defined for 'compatibility' but > without them you can't do half of it. so we end up with what this project > was up against.. everyone has its own build environment. Are the TCP/IP haders in the OS/2 Toolkit different to those in Posix/2 and EMX? I thought they were based on BSD headers. There's obviously a problem in that not everyone has the OS/2 toolkit. It isn't freely available AFAIK... Or is it? Maybe I should try incorporating it into UX2BS? > please some reaction/tips > > With Regards > Bart van Leeuwen -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:09:49 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: UX2BS review On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:08:27PM -0400, Henry Sobotka wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > > There's obviously a problem in that not everyone has the OS/2 toolkit. It > > isn't freely available AFAIK... Or is it? Maybe I should try incorporating > > it into UX2BS? > > It's "free" with eCS or SWC OS/2. AIUI it's freely downloadable from some IBM developer site if you register. But I doubt whether it is freely distributable... Although having said that would anyone at IBM care if it was distributed? > The headers are also full of ^Z's that > the gcc 3.2.1 preprocessor chokes on so you might want to clean that up > before adding them to the tree. If they were added, some thought would need to be made about how they were added. I think there is quite a bit of overlap with Posix/2 and/or EMX, although I doubt whether any maintenance will be done, but I would expect Posix/2 to be brought up to date at some point. > h~ -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:16:39 -0700 From: sma at sohnen-moe.com Subject: Re: GOCR >The easiest way to get it to use the .exe suffix is by adding -Zexe to >the linkage flags. > I tried that by adding "-Zexe" to the LDFLAGS section in build.table. It apparently does not propogate the additional flag(s) far enough to be useful. The solution to the two problems is to use pre- and post-process scripts. The pre-process deletes the make.bat; the post-process calls emxbind to convert the aout to exe. >But if the build process has ac_executable_suffix, the focus should be >on nailing the cause of the failure. Possibly a missing $(BIN_SUFFIX) >or some such variable appended to the target(s). > I have a hard time plowing through configure scripts so I missed how it was done when I first reported the results. ac_executable_suffix is not used anywhere. The script uses a test developed for Cygwin that results with .exe as the suffix for running configure tests but does not carry that to Makefile creation. >Modifying Makefile.in's is easy. All the Makefile.in->Makefile process >does is substitute anything in form %foo% for the value of foo as >determined by configure; if undefined, it normally outputs %foo%. > Well, the Makefile.in is half the problem. It assigns PROGRAM = gocr, not PROGRAM = gocr.exe. There is no at exeext at (or equivalent) to finesse. And configure itself does not make the exe variable available even if it were possible in Makefile.in. :-( _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:01:24 -0700 From: sma at sohnen-moe.com Subject: Re: UX2BS review >Are there any major apps which won't build? > I have tried gnupg (GNU Privacy Guard) v1.3.1 with no success: checking for gethostbyname... no .\CONFIGURE.[5112]: syntax error: `done' unexpected ..configure failed. It's that "done" problem again. Has anyone figured out what is happening with that? _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:06:47 -0700 From: sma at sohnen-moe.com Subject: Re: UX2BS review > >Are there any major apps which won't build? > Oh, yeah... make 3.79.1. The build stops with this really long error: [... a lot of stuff not shown ...] Making install in glob make[1]: Entering directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' cd .. && automake --foreign --include-deps glob/Makefile cd .. \ && CONFIG_FILES=glob/Makefile CONFIG_HEADERS= /bin/sh ./config.status config.status: creating glob/Makefile make[1]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' make[1]: Entering directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -c glob.c make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -c fnmatch.c rm -f libglob.a ar cru libglob.a glob.o fnmatch.o ..Compiler version is: 2.8.1 Wed Apr 9 23:05:13 MST 2003 ===> This is the end of build.sh! It looks like make spawned and the child dragged its ass. It continues with... echo libglob.a libglob.a make[2]: Entering directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. make[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' make[1]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' elapsed time: 99 secs end cd . \ && CONFIG_FILES= CONFIG_HEADERS=config.h \ /bin/sh ./config.status config.status: creating config.h make all-recursive make[1]: Entering directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1' Making all in glob make[2]: Entering directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/glob' Making all in i18n make[2]: Entering directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/i18n' cd .. && automake --gnits --include-deps i18n/Makefile cd .. \ && CONFIG_FILES=i18n/Makefile CONFIG_HEADERS= /bin/sh ./config.status config.status: creating i18n/Makefile make[2]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/i18n' make[2]: Entering directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/i18n' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1/i18n' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/unixos2/workdir/make-3.79.1' make: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2 An unhappy end. Then by changing to the make-3.79.1 directory and issuing "make install", it finishes. Grr. Argh. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:56:42 +0100 From: "Bart van Leeuwen" Subject: Re: UX2BS review On 09-04-2003 20:09:49 ux2bs-bounces wrote: >On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:08:27PM -0400, Henry Sobotka wrote: >> John Poltorak wrote: >> > >> > There's obviously a problem in that not everyone has the OS/2 toolkit. It >> > isn't freely available AFAIK... Or is it? Maybe I should try incorporating >> > it into UX2BS? >> >> It's "free" with eCS or SWC OS/2. > >AIUI it's freely downloadable from some IBM developer site if you >register. But I doubt whether it is freely distributable... Although >having said that would anyone at IBM care if it was distributed? > > >> The headers are also full of ^Z's that >> the gcc 3.2.1 preprocessor chokes on so you might want to clean that up >> before adding them to the tree. > >If they were added, some thought would need to be made about how they were >added. I think there is quite a bit of overlap with Posix/2 and/or EMX, >although I doubt whether any maintenance will be done, but I would expect >Posix/2 to be brought up to date at some point. as said as this statement is. I think we should merge the missing parts of the OS/2 headers. this is rather safe to do since its not likely that they will change anytime soon. but where to do that ?? how to coordinate that ?? I've did it localu by editing the heardes and add a define and create a .a for some functions. the way to do it is not in question.. how to coordinate is... it needs to be tested etc. Bart _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs