Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:40:51 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 131 ************************************************** Thursday 10 April 2003 Number 131 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: New Apache : Hannes Hromadka 2 Re: GOCR : John Poltorak 3 Re: UX2BS review : John Poltorak 4 Re: M4 build problem : John Poltorak 5 Re: Is there a ux2 "ln"? : sma at sohnen-moe.com **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:14:00 +0200 From: Hannes Hromadka Subject: Re: New Apache On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:42:13AM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > Is there a binary version of a sh.exe available where test -x works ? > > If you do an RSYNC refresh of UX2BS from 213.152.37.92 you should pick up > pdksh-5.2.14.diff. > > I'd be interested to know whether the patch works correctly... Yes, it works. The built sh.exe can be used to run configure for httpd 2.0.44. This weekend I'll try to build 2.0.45 Ciao, Hannes -- Johannes Hromadka | Email Office: HromadkaJ at gmx.at | Home : Johannes.Hromadka at gmx.net Vienna/Austria/Europe | OECC: http://www.oecc.org/ >>> Rust never sleeps (borrowed from Neil YOUNG) <<< _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:19:44 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: GOCR On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 08:35:11PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > > 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. :-( > > PROGRAM = gocr$(EXEEXT) > should do the job in Makefile.am (there might be also other occurrences > of "gocr"). GOCR does not include Makefile.am. > 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 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:24:26 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: UX2BS review On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 10:37:49PM +0200, Sebastian (Ginko) wrote: > Guten Tag John Poltorak, > am Donnerstag, 10. April 2003 um 21:46 schrieben Sie: > > JP> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:01:24PM -0700, sma at sohnen-moe.com wrote: > >> I have tried gnupg (GNU Privacy Guard) v1.3.1 with no success: > JP> I guess that is a typo. The latest I could find was v1.2.1... > > It don't think it's a typo; see here: > > http://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/alpha/gnupg/ > > JP> I don't see why it should be different to your result, especially this > JP> difference:- > JP> .\CONFIGURE.[5112]: syntax error: `done' unexpected > JP> ./configure[4962]: syntax error: `done' unexpected > > Also, because of other version of gnupg used. A different version would explain the line number but what would account for this difference:- ? .\CONFIGURE. ./configure There must be different SHELLs at work... > Sebastian -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:09:15 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: M4 build problem On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 10:43:05PM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > sma at sohnen-moe.com wrote: > > [snip] > > > Here is an excerpt from lib/Makefile.in that created the makefile: AR > > = ar > > CC = at CC at > > CFLAGS = at CFLAGS at > > > > AR is hard-coded. It is difficult to work around this one without > > creating a post-autoconf patch. > > You can use "make AR=emxomfar". Variables on the make command > line overwrite those from the Makefiles. Or you can set > AR = at AR at > in your Makefile.in. Would patching Makefile.in be a better way to do things? It seems much cleaner... I'm also wondering if I should change the infodir line to:- infodir = at infodir at so that '--infodir=' can be specified as a configure option... I don't really understand how this construct works, but I guess if Makefile.in contains:- prefix = at prefix at then configure will look for a command line option of '--prefix=', but what if it doesn't find one? Does prefix get set to nul? > > 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 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:35:59 -0700 From: sma at sohnen-moe.com Subject: Re: Is there a ux2 "ln"? >There's an ln.cmd (from Holger?): >/* Poor man's ln command */ >' at echo off' >parse arg src dest >if src = '-s' then > parse arg dummy src dest >'copy 'translate(src,'\','/') translate(dest,'\','/')' 2>&1 >nul' > exit 0 > But despite my reservations, it is a vasty improvement. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs