Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 02:47:02 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 170 ************************************************** Thursday 07 August 2003 Number 170 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : Henry Sobotka 2 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : T.Sikora" 3 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : T.Sikora" 4 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 5 RE: Dependency file : Wegert, Eric L" 6 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : Henry Sobotka 7 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 8 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 9 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 10 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : James Moe" 11 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 12 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : John Poltorak 13 RE: Dependency file : Wegert, Eric L" 14 Dependency file : John Poltorak 15 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 16 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 17 Re: Dependency file : T.Sikora" 18 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : T.Sikora" 19 Re: maximus rexx : T.Sikora" 20 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : T.Sikora" 21 Re: Dependency file : John Poltorak 22 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : T.Sikora" 23 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : John Poltorak 24 Re: gcc 3.2.1 : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:05:47 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 T.Sikora wrote: > > We also need to add ulsemx.zip to emx for unicode support. No longer necessary with gcc 3.2.1; Unicode API support is built-in. h~ _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:13:45 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:38:31PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>gmp202 and expat are in baseline too and are needed in emx. These are >>needed for Python, Mozilla and most web based ports. > > > This is getting away from the point of the baseline whose primary function > is to provide a minimal set of files which can be used as a basic toolset. > > gmp and expat should be buildable from source rather than added to the > baseline. > > I'll add expat to build then. gmp maybe should be in baseline? It's one of EH's orig ports for emx. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:20:03 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 Henry Sobotka wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >>We also need to add ulsemx.zip to emx for unicode support. > > > No longer necessary with gcc 3.2.1; Unicode API support is built-in. > > h~ It's needed for 2.8.1 though? I'll work on making a script that prompts you for what compiler you want to use using James' scripts. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:24:25 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file John Poltorak wrote: > One of the problems which keep recurring when attempting to build apps is > the question of having all the prerequisite files and libraries available. > > In order to address this I thought a dependency file of some sort would > need to be set up which would consist of a number of lines, one for each > application which had any dependencies. The line would consist of the > target app, followed by a list of dependencies. > > As part of the build process there would be some sort of check to see that > all the prerequisites were in place before proceeding. > > How does that sound in principle? > > Most systems have it. RPM will fail if a depandancy is not found others give a warning. Configure does this and usually stops short of making the makefile or config.h. We should be able to do something similar. Do a check for the lib and report found or not and halt the build if not found. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:29:13 -0400 From: "Wegert, Eric L" Subject: RE: Dependency file Team: Since most applications are being built via autoconf, configure, make and configure tries to determine all of the prerequisites are installed/available, what problem are we trying to address ? Does configure need to check for prerequisites that are not being checked for ? Creating/adding another table/database for defining prerequisites/dependencies sounds like additional complexities/redundancies. We already have a build.table, posiz/2 exceptions, etc. -----Original Message----- From: T.Sikora [mailto:tsikora at ntplx.net] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:24 AM To: UX2 Build System Subject: Re: Dependency file John Poltorak wrote: > One of the problems which keep recurring when attempting to build apps is > the question of having all the prerequisite files and libraries available. > > In order to address this I thought a dependency file of some sort would > need to be set up which would consist of a number of lines, one for each > application which had any dependencies. The line would consist of the > target app, followed by a list of dependencies. > > As part of the build process there would be some sort of check to see that > all the prerequisites were in place before proceeding. > > How does that sound in principle? > > Most systems have it. RPM will fail if a depandancy is not found others give a warning. Configure does this and usually stops short of making the makefile or config.h. We should be able to do something similar. Do a check for the lib and report found or not and halt the build if not found. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:37:50 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 T.Sikora wrote: > > It's needed for 2.8.1 though? I'll work on making a script that prompts > you for what compiler you want to use using James' scripts. Once 3.2.1 is properly installed, the support is there (in os2.[a|lib]) for use with the earlier compilers as well. So it's really only needed with a vanilla 2.8.1 or 2.95.3 installation. h~ _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:42:10 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file Wegert, Eric L wrote: > Team: > > Since most applications are being built via autoconf, configure, make and > configure tries to determine all of the prerequisites are > installed/available, what problem are we trying to address ? Does configure > need to check for prerequisites that are not being checked for ? He means within the build_port.cmd I think? Not all builds fail with autoconf either. If you do not watch the configure results you can miss it because some start the build even when things are missing. > > Creating/adding another table/database for defining > prerequisites/dependencies sounds like additional complexities/redundancies. > We already have a build.table, posiz/2 exceptions, etc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: T.Sikora [mailto:tsikora at ntplx.net] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:24 AM > To: UX2 Build System > Subject: Re: Dependency file > > > John Poltorak wrote: > >>One of the problems which keep recurring when attempting to build apps is >>the question of having all the prerequisite files and libraries available. > > >>In order to address this I thought a dependency file of some sort would >>need to be set up which would consist of a number of lines, one for each >>application which had any dependencies. The line would consist of the >>target app, followed by a list of dependencies. >> >>As part of the build process there would be some sort of check to see that > > >>all the prerequisites were in place before proceeding. >> >>How does that sound in principle? >> >> > > Most systems have it. RPM will fail if a depandancy is not found others > give a warning. Configure does this and usually stops short of making > the makefile or config.h. We should be able to do something similar. Do > a check for the lib and report found or not and halt the build if not found. > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:47:23 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file Wegert, Eric L wrote: > Team: > > Since most applications are being built via autoconf, configure, make and > configure tries to determine all of the prerequisites are > installed/available, what problem are we trying to address ? Does configure > need to check for prerequisites that are not being checked for ? > > Creating/adding another table/database for defining > prerequisites/dependencies sounds like additional complexities/redundancies. > We already have a build.table, posiz/2 exceptions, etc. Actually the more I think about it it's a real good idea. All the depedancies can be added to a depends.lst the build_port.cmd calls say ux2_chkdep.cmd which looks for a header for the port. If found it checks to see if the items listed are installed. FreeBSD ports has a similar mechanism. > > -----Original Message----- > From: T.Sikora [mailto:tsikora at ntplx.net] > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:24 AM > To: UX2 Build System > Subject: Re: Dependency file > > > John Poltorak wrote: > >>One of the problems which keep recurring when attempting to build apps is >>the question of having all the prerequisite files and libraries available. > > >>In order to address this I thought a dependency file of some sort would >>need to be set up which would consist of a number of lines, one for each >>application which had any dependencies. The line would consist of the >>target app, followed by a list of dependencies. >> >>As part of the build process there would be some sort of check to see that > > >>all the prerequisites were in place before proceeding. >> >>How does that sound in principle? >> >> > > Most systems have it. RPM will fail if a depandancy is not found others > give a warning. Configure does this and usually stops short of making > the makefile or config.h. We should be able to do something similar. Do > a check for the lib and report found or not and halt the build if not found. > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 10:01:06 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file T.Sikora wrote: > Wegert, Eric L wrote: > >> Team: >> >> Since most applications are being built via autoconf, configure, make and >> configure tries to determine all of the prerequisites are >> installed/available, what problem are we trying to address ? Does >> configure >> need to check for prerequisites that are not being checked for ? >> >> Creating/adding another table/database for defining >> prerequisites/dependencies sounds like additional >> complexities/redundancies. >> We already have a build.table, posiz/2 exceptions, etc. > > > Actually the more I think about it it's a real good idea. All the > depedancies can be added to a depends.lst the build_port.cmd calls say > ux2_chkdep.cmd which looks for a header for the port. If found it checks > to see if the items listed are installed. FreeBSD ports has a similar > mechanism. > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: T.Sikora [mailto:tsikora at ntplx.net] >> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:24 AM >> To: UX2 Build System >> Subject: Re: Dependency file >> >> >> John Poltorak wrote: >> >>> One of the problems which keep recurring when attempting to build >>> apps is the question of having all the prerequisite files and >>> libraries available. >> >> >> >>> In order to address this I thought a dependency file of some sort >>> would need to be set up which would consist of a number of lines, one >>> for each application which had any dependencies. The line would >>> consist of the target app, followed by a list of dependencies. >>> >>> As part of the build process there would be some sort of check to see >>> that >> >> >> >>> all the prerequisites were in place before proceeding. >>> >>> How does that sound in principle? >>> >>> >> >> Most systems have it. RPM will fail if a depandancy is not found >> others give a warning. Configure does this and usually stops short of >> making the makefile or config.h. We should be able to do something >> similar. Do a check for the lib and report found or not and halt the >> build if not found. >> > > When someone submits a build script they include their depend.lst entries that are added. Instead of a master /build etc maybe we should just name a directory named after the port like: perl/ build_perl.cmd (which should be named just build.cmd so all you do is change to perl/ and run build.cmd more uniform for all the ports. the dir structure for perl perl/ build.cmd post-process/ pre-conf/ pre-process/ When someone submits a port it has to conform to this with a depend.lst which instead of a master can even reside here but calls the ux2_chkdep.cmd routine within build.cmd. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 10:12:05 -0700 (MST) From: "James Moe" Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:16:10 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >This is getting away from the point of the baseline whose primary function >is to provide a minimal set of files which can be used as a basic toolset. > We could include a second baseline script that adds these useful and often required libraries to the main baseline. This is easier than plugging them in one at a time. - -- jimoe at sohnen-moe dot com pgp/gpg public key: http://www.keyserver.net/en/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2 Charset: cp850 wj8DBQE/M9nlsxxMki0foKoRAvuuAJ0Txpuz6WHC3QDaEjkjID93lAUOMwCfVVNT CXY9XeZpu4Szi9sl1acv5Ik= =nkkK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 10:13:11 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file T.Sikora wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> Wegert, Eric L wrote: >> >>> Team: >>> >>> Since most applications are being built via autoconf, configure, make >>> and >>> configure tries to determine all of the prerequisites are >>> installed/available, what problem are we trying to address ? Does >>> configure >>> need to check for prerequisites that are not being checked for ? >>> >>> Creating/adding another table/database for defining >>> prerequisites/dependencies sounds like additional >>> complexities/redundancies. >>> We already have a build.table, posiz/2 exceptions, etc. >> >> >> >> Actually the more I think about it it's a real good idea. All the >> depedancies can be added to a depends.lst the build_port.cmd calls say >> ux2_chkdep.cmd which looks for a header for the port. If found it >> checks to see if the items listed are installed. FreeBSD ports has a >> similar mechanism. >> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: T.Sikora [mailto:tsikora at ntplx.net] >>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:24 AM >>> To: UX2 Build System >>> Subject: Re: Dependency file >>> >>> >>> John Poltorak wrote: >>> >>>> One of the problems which keep recurring when attempting to build >>>> apps is the question of having all the prerequisite files and >>>> libraries available. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> In order to address this I thought a dependency file of some sort >>>> would need to be set up which would consist of a number of lines, >>>> one for each application which had any dependencies. The line would >>>> consist of the target app, followed by a list of dependencies. >>>> >>>> As part of the build process there would be some sort of check to >>>> see that >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> all the prerequisites were in place before proceeding. >>>> >>>> How does that sound in principle? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Most systems have it. RPM will fail if a depandancy is not found >>> others give a warning. Configure does this and usually stops short of >>> making the makefile or config.h. We should be able to do something >>> similar. Do a check for the lib and report found or not and halt the >>> build if not found. >>> >> >> > When someone submits a build script they include their depend.lst > entries that are added. Instead of a master /build etc maybe we should > just name a directory named after the port like: > > perl/ build_perl.cmd (which should be named just build.cmd so all you > do is change to perl/ and run build.cmd more uniform for all the ports. > > the dir structure for perl > > perl/ > build.cmd > post-process/ > pre-conf/ > pre-process/ > > > When someone submits a port it has to conform to this with a depend.lst > which instead of a master can even reside here but calls the > ux2_chkdep.cmd routine within build.cmd. > > We should include /makefiles and /patches here too. When build.cmd is called it makes a work/ directory in /perl and builds it there. It all makes sense to me. So: perl/ build.cmd depend.lst makefiles/ patches/ post-process/ pre-conf/ pre-process/ We can even add gcc here too instead of gcc_inst. We proved the ux2bs system works now we have to refine it. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:16:10 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:38:31PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > gmp202 and expat are in baseline too and are needed in emx. These are > needed for Python, Mozilla and most web based ports. This is getting away from the point of the baseline whose primary function is to provide a minimal set of files which can be used as a basic toolset. gmp and expat should be buildable from source rather than added to the baseline. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:19:03 -0400 From: "Wegert, Eric L" Subject: RE: Dependency file Team: Where would this directory structure be located ? Based upon this idea, should we create /build directory that contains a sub-directory for each app that would contain any makefiles, patches, scripts, etc. /build/ app/ depends.lst app.diff makefile build.cmd post-process.cmd pre-conf.cmd pre-process.cmd This would result in all customizations for building an app in the UnixOS2 build system being located together for each app under one directory tree instead of /makefiles, /patches, /scripts, etc. It would also be easier to package up all the customizations for a single package/app. To take this one step further, the information for build.table and p2_exc.lst could be located/distributed through this packaging/directory with a script that merges this information into the text-file/database in /lib or have the build scripts look for this information in the app specific directory under /build (i.e. /build/make-3.79.1/build.cfg and /build/make-3.79.1/posix2.cfg). -----Original Message----- From: T.Sikora [mailto:tsikora at ntplx.net] Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 9:01 AM To: UX2 Build System Subject: Re: Dependency file T.Sikora wrote: When someone submits a build script they include their depend.lst entries that are added. Instead of a master /build etc maybe we should just name a directory named after the port like: perl/ build_perl.cmd (which should be named just build.cmd so all you do is change to perl/ and run build.cmd more uniform for all the ports. the dir structure for perl perl/ build.cmd post-process/ pre-conf/ pre-process/ When someone submits a port it has to conform to this with a depend.lst which instead of a master can even reside here but calls the ux2_chkdep.cmd routine within build.cmd. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:26:20 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Dependency file One of the problems which keep recurring when attempting to build apps is the question of having all the prerequisite files and libraries available. In order to address this I thought a dependency file of some sort would need to be set up which would consist of a number of lines, one for each application which had any dependencies. The line would consist of the target app, followed by a list of dependencies. As part of the build process there would be some sort of check to see that all the prerequisites were in place before proceeding. How does that sound in principle? -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 10:46:36 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file Wegert, Eric L wrote: > Team: > > Where would this directory structure be located ? in ux2bs/build_system/scripts or rename scripts to ports ex; build_system/ports/perl/ build.cmd depend.lst makefiles/ patches/ post-process/ pre-conf/ pre-process/ > > Based upon this idea, should we create /build directory that contains a > sub-directory for each app that would contain any makefiles, patches, > scripts, etc. Just look in the existing scripts directory. This would replace the existing one. Each port perl/ autoconf/ etc. Would be identical. We can make a How-To for port maintainers to conforn to this. As for dependancies all we need is a ux2_chkdep.cmd routine to check the depend.lst. No reason to make anything overly complicated. Were very close to this or it already exists but it's spread out in build_system/ and scripts/. This will really tidy things up. ftp://os2ports.com/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/build_system I 'll copy perl to it and see if we can get it working within this structure or not. What do you think John? > > > This would result in all customizations for building an app in the UnixOS2 > build system being located together for each app under one directory tree > instead of /makefiles, /patches, /scripts, etc. It would also be easier to > package up all the customizations for a single package/app. > > To take this one step further, the information for build.table and > p2_exc.lst could be located/distributed through this packaging/directory > with a script that merges this information into the text-file/database in > /lib or have the build scripts look for this information in the app specific > directory under /build (i.e. /build/make-3.79.1/build.cfg and > /build/make-3.79.1/posix2.cfg). Exactly BSD uses a tools/scripts directory like this in port/ but locating it outside in build_system probably would be better. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:11:19 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file T.Sikora wrote: > Wegert, Eric L wrote: > >> Team: >> >> Where would this directory structure be located ? > > in ux2bs/build_system/scripts or rename scripts to ports ex; > > build_system/ports/perl/ > build.cmd > depend.lst > makefiles/ > patches/ > post-process/ > pre-conf/ > pre-process/ > Actually this is even overly complicated most dirs are not needed This would be cleaner: build_system/ports/perl/ build.cmd depend.lst (dependancy list) pkg-desc (desc of port) pkg-list (installed files and locations) scripts/ (any port specific script) All the stuff in pre/post-process, etc goes in scripts? All ux2 routines called in build.cmd go in build_system/tools So: baseline/ emx/ gcc/ build_system/ ux2_bootstrap.cmd tools/ rsync.exe wget.exe scripts/ (ux2 scripts ux2_env ux2_chkdep etc. install/ (install scripts, ux2_inst, etc.) ports/ (ux2 ports collection) perl/ someotherport/ The stuff in lib/ can be put into tools/scripts and tools/install All that stuff that builds after emx installs can be called from it's own directory in ports/ I think John wanted to do this originally after ux2bs was stable enough -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:35:29 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Dependency file T.Sikora wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> Wegert, Eric L wrote: >> >>> Team: >>> >>> Where would this directory structure be located ? >> >> >> in ux2bs/build_system/scripts or rename scripts to ports ex; >> >> build_system/ports/perl/ >> build.cmd >> depend.lst >> makefiles/ >> patches/ >> post-process/ >> pre-conf/ >> pre-process/ >> > > Actually this is even overly complicated most dirs are not needed > > This would be cleaner: > > build_system/ports/perl/ > build.cmd > depend.lst (dependancy list) > pkg-desc (desc of port) > pkg-list (installed files and locations) > scripts/ (any port specific script) > > The build.cmd could have an optional argument of pkg build (default for ux2)or build pkg to make a unixos2 or standalone distributable package. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:49:56 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 James Moe wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:16:10 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >>This is getting away from the point of the baseline whose primary function >>is to provide a minimal set of files which can be used as a basic toolset. >> > > We could include a second baseline script that adds these useful and often required > libraries to the main baseline. This is easier than plugging them in one at a time. > Why bother just add the base and just build whatever you want from ports afterwards. I think we should just end it with the base and everything else is built from /scripts ie; /ports from the command line. I think that was what John was trying to do? Just establish a minimal required baseline. I made a sample build_system.new/ with the paths and layout I suggested. Jeff and me will try to get it working tonight. Right Jeff? He just keeps volunteering. What a guy. ftp://os2ports.com/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/build_system.new > > - -- > jimoe at sohnen-moe dot com > pgp/gpg public key: http://www.keyserver.net/en/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use > Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2 > Charset: cp850 > > wj8DBQE/M9nlsxxMki0foKoRAvuuAJ0Txpuz6WHC3QDaEjkjID93lAUOMwCfVVNT > CXY9XeZpu4Szi9sl1acv5Ik= > =nkkK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > UX2BS mailing list > UX2BS at os2ports.com > http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:23:56 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: maximus rexx Jeff Robinson wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> > > Actually, dialog ( > http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/util/dialog-0.9b-os2.zip ) is pretty > cool and easy to use for things, and it handles stuff like lists, > checkboxes, user input, etc. > > For example, a simply yes/no dialog is: > dialog --yesno "Does this rock?" 0 0 > > I have a feeling that Slackware's setup program actually is "dialog" run > by a shell script. It is. > > As far as dependecies go, you need EMX to run dialog, though (looks like > it takes mouse input, too!?): > Loading DLL 'emx' --> F:\EMX\DLL\EMX.DLL. > Loading DLL 'EMXLIBCM' --> F:\EMX\DLL\EMXLIBCM.DLL. > Loading DLL 'doscalls' --> loaded. > Loading DLL 'moucalls' --> E:\OS2\DLL\MOUCALLS.DLL. > > Though perhaps it is possible to recompile it as stand-alone. > > Jeff > Could you check rsync for me? My machine's tied up again. If it just uses the same dlls we'll make a routine to download them for rsync thus solving the depend problems for it and dialog for the bootstrap to run. Using an install like Slack once the files are downloaded would be real cool. Once bootstrap runs ux2_inst could be a dialog driven install. In the end it could prompt you to check which ports you want to install along with ports that are required. For non-technical users you can rerun the ports portion of it for installing ports. Bring it up to select what you want and it builds and installs it. This should all be pretty simple since all it has to do is call the build.cmd in each ports directory. We first need to get the new structure operational before we consider all this fancy stuff. All this stuff is extremely simple and we been making it more complicated than it needs to be. Make the baseline or emx minimal and add whatever you want or is required right from ports. We keep cluttering up the ux2bs system with unnecessary junk and routines. You need a dependancy or port call it from /ports. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:39:30 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 John Poltorak wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:12:05AM -0700, James Moe wrote: > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:16:10 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >>>This is getting away from the point of the baseline whose primary function >>>is to provide a minimal set of files which can be used as a basic toolset. >>> >> >> We could include a second baseline script that adds these useful and often required >>libraries to the main baseline. This is easier than plugging them in one at a time. > > > The idea behind UX2BS is that anyone can build libraries for themselves > with the minimum effort instead of having to comply with some standards > imposed by the original porter. A lot of precompiled software includes > hard coded paths which won't necessarily be convenient on one's own > system. If you build it for yourself, you can tailor it to your own > requirements. It also means that if you have problems building it, those > problems should be easily reproducible by anyone else using UX2BS. > > I guess the heart of this project was to standardize the way unix ports are done in OS/2. Make an OS/2 file hierarchy (same as Unix) standard and hope everyone follows the suggested ux2 way of building ports. Right now we have /usr/bin /xfree86 d:\rsync, or whatever. It's all over the place. This alone will pull everything together. I notice that most new ports are using the ux2 way although there are a few hanging on to the 'old way' like perl and python. A lot of guys were reluctant to start adding /usr /bin to the root. What's the difference you add /dm or /mozilla. One thing I don't agree on is /etc. I think we should use the system defined /MPTN/etc as in config.sys but that's trivial. What would make all this really worthwhile is running XFree86 in 'rootless' mode on the desktop like in OSX. I wonder if anyone has considered porting it for OS/2? The source is freely available from Darwin or Fink. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:20:27 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Dependency file On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:29:13AM -0400, Wegert, Eric L wrote: > Team: > > Since most applications are being built via autoconf, configure, make and > configure tries to determine all of the prerequisites are > installed/available, what problem are we trying to address ? I'm thinking of something like Python, Mailman or possibly Mozilla. Having a dependency file would enable the prerequisite apps to be be built automatically if they were missing. > Does configure > need to check for prerequisites that are not being checked for ? > > Creating/adding another table/database for defining > prerequisites/dependencies sounds like additional complexities/redundancies. > We already have a build.table, posiz/2 exceptions, etc. Yes, but it is all done within a single build script. Creating a single build environment where everything gets built automatically without the need for following scores of manual instructions is not a trivial task. It is necessarily complex because of what is being attempted. Build.table is the single configuration file which drives everything else. The posix/2 exceptions list is a kludge which, hopefully can disappear in due course, but it allows us to accomodate the evolution of Posix/2 without waiting for it to be complete. There aren't any other configuration tables, so adding a dependency file does not sound onerous. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:58:11 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 John Poltorak wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:39:30PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>>The idea behind UX2BS is that anyone can build libraries for themselves >>>with the minimum effort instead of having to comply with some standards >>>imposed by the original porter. A lot of precompiled software includes >>>hard coded paths which won't necessarily be convenient on one's own >>>system. If you build it for yourself, you can tailor it to your own >>>requirements. It also means that if you have problems building it, those >>>problems should be easily reproducible by anyone else using UX2BS. >>> >>> >> >>I guess the heart of this project was to standardize the way unix ports >>are done in OS/2. Make an OS/2 file hierarchy (same as Unix) standard >>and hope everyone follows the suggested ux2 way of building ports. Right >>now we have /usr/bin /xfree86 > > > I was hoping the latest release of Xfree86 was going to follow the > standard Unix directory structure. Holger hinted that he would like to do > it that way, and I presume rebuilding it with the correct structure would > not involve any code changes, but I'm not at all sure where to start with > a build. Have you had any experience with Mac's OSX? They have a 'rootless' version of XFree86 that runs on the Mac desktop besides the normal server. It loads the XFree86 server and when an X program is launched it runs right on the Mac gui desktop within tvm but you can use any wm like blackbox. It's really nice. I wonder if it is portable to OS/2. The source is freely available. http://fink.sourceforge.net/ This is everything we ever dreamed of on OS/2. > > > >>ports are using the ux2 way although there are a few hanging on to the >>'old way' like perl and python. > > > Perl builds quite easily anyway now and I much prefer to have it set up > the way I want. Python is something I haven't tried building as yet. > > >>A lot of guys were reluctant to start >>adding /usr /bin to the root. What's the difference you add /dm or >>/mozilla. One thing I don't agree on is /etc. I think we should use the >>system defined /MPTN/etc as in config.sys but that's trivial. > > > I've defined %ETC% as \etc for many years and hate to see anything > hardcoded as /mptn/etc. %ETC% doesn't really have anything to do with MPTN > anyway, and it only gets defined if it doesn't already exist. > > >>-- >>T.Sikora >>tsikora at ntplx dot net > > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 19:04:53 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:12:05AM -0700, James Moe wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:16:10 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >This is getting away from the point of the baseline whose primary function > >is to provide a minimal set of files which can be used as a basic toolset. > > > We could include a second baseline script that adds these useful and often required > libraries to the main baseline. This is easier than plugging them in one at a time. The idea behind UX2BS is that anyone can build libraries for themselves with the minimum effort instead of having to comply with some standards imposed by the original porter. A lot of precompiled software includes hard coded paths which won't necessarily be convenient on one's own system. If you build it for yourself, you can tailor it to your own requirements. It also means that if you have problems building it, those problems should be easily reproducible by anyone else using UX2BS. > > - -- > jimoe at sohnen-moe dot com -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 22:55:34 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: gcc 3.2.1 On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:39:30PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > The idea behind UX2BS is that anyone can build libraries for themselves > > with the minimum effort instead of having to comply with some standards > > imposed by the original porter. A lot of precompiled software includes > > hard coded paths which won't necessarily be convenient on one's own > > system. If you build it for yourself, you can tailor it to your own > > requirements. It also means that if you have problems building it, those > > problems should be easily reproducible by anyone else using UX2BS. > > > > > I guess the heart of this project was to standardize the way unix ports > are done in OS/2. Make an OS/2 file hierarchy (same as Unix) standard > and hope everyone follows the suggested ux2 way of building ports. Right > now we have /usr/bin /xfree86 I was hoping the latest release of Xfree86 was going to follow the standard Unix directory structure. Holger hinted that he would like to do it that way, and I presume rebuilding it with the correct structure would not involve any code changes, but I'm not at all sure where to start with a build. > ports are using the ux2 way although there are a few hanging on to the > 'old way' like perl and python. Perl builds quite easily anyway now and I much prefer to have it set up the way I want. Python is something I haven't tried building as yet. > A lot of guys were reluctant to start > adding /usr /bin to the root. What's the difference you add /dm or > /mozilla. One thing I don't agree on is /etc. I think we should use the > system defined /MPTN/etc as in config.sys but that's trivial. I've defined %ETC% as \etc for many years and hate to see anything hardcoded as /mptn/etc. %ETC% doesn't really have anything to do with MPTN anyway, and it only gets defined if it doesn't already exist. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs