Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:47:18 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 175 ************************************************** Sunday 17 August 2003 Number 175 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems : T.Sikora" 2 Re: ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems : T.Sikora" 3 build.sh : T.Sikora" 4 Re: build.sh : T.Sikora" 5 Re: Urgent UX2BS rethink needed. : T.Sikora" 6 Re: Urgent UX2BS rethink needed. : John Poltorak 7 Direction : Jeff Robinson 8 Re: Direction : T.Sikora" 9 ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems : Paul Smedley" 10 Re: ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems : Paul Smedley" 11 Re: build.sh : T.Sikora" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:34:59 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems Paul Smedley wrote: > Hi All, > Just found out about UX2BS as I'm trying to build a current version of Gphoto2. > > Have some issues with the latest version of ux2bs_inst.cmd > > First problem - the script tries to download /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emxrt.zip which > doesn't exist - the file is actually in /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emx/emxrt.zip fixed > > Secondly, the script calls > "unzip -uo e:\ux2_base.zip e:" - unzip 5.50 reports an error from this caution: filename not > matched: e: > > unzip is expecting a list of files ie * in the position that the script is placing the destination for > the extraction. > > Changing each unzip operation from > "unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip %uxrt%" > > to > > "%uxrt% > unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip" seems to be working.. fixed > > Also, shouldn't the script be downloading its own copy of unzip.exe so that there are no > pre-requisites for the package? We been kicking that idea around. I was thinking of making the first few files required self-extracting and including the ux2 infozip.zip package. Any other ideas? I scratched it after figuring everyone has zip already anyways. > > Keep up the good work on the package - it's a cool thing you're doing. The ports tree is in place and all that remains is changing paths in install\scripts\build.sh and in each ports build scripts. It should download everything add the ux2 packages, emx, gcc, set the environment then fail at the build.lst for ports..the last step. > > Cheers, > > Paul. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:01:01 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems Paul Smedley wrote: > Further to my previous note, the script also trys to do the following: > call pkg_inst - but pkg_inst.cmd isn't in either the current directory - or the path so fails. > > Same with "call emx_inst" & "Call gcc_inst" > > Cheers, > > Paul. > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:16:20 +0950 (CST), Paul Smedley wrote: > > >>Hi All, >>Just found out about UX2BS as I'm trying to build a current version of Gphoto2. >> >>Have some issues with the latest version of ux2bs_inst.cmd >> >>First problem - the script tries to download /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emxrt.zip > > which > >>doesn't exist - the file is actually in /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emx/emxrt.zip >> >>Secondly, the script calls >>"unzip -uo e:\ux2_base.zip e:" - unzip 5.50 reports an error from this caution: filename > > not > >>matched: e: >> >>unzip is expecting a list of files ie * in the position that the script is placing the destination > > for > >>the extraction. >> >>Changing each unzip operation from >>"unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip %uxrt%" >> >>to >> >>"%uxrt% >>unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip" seems to be working.. >> >>Also, shouldn't the script be downloading its own copy of unzip.exe so that there are no >>pre-requisites for the package? >> >>Keep up the good work on the package - it's a cool thing you're doing. >> >>Cheers, >> > Want to grab a fresh copy and try it now? ftp://os2ports.com/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/build_system/ux2bs_inst.cmd It should work up to the final command 'build build.lst'. I should have that straightened out shortly too. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:54:16 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: build.sh I need to define a %port% directory for build.sh replacing $BLD_HOME examples: PATCHFILE=$BLD_HOME/patches/$ARCHIVE.diff $fname=$BLD_HOME/pre-process/$PKG $fname=$BLD_HOME/build_$1.cmd $fname=$BLD_HOME/makefiles/$ARCHIVE.mak $fname=$BLD_HOME/post-process/$PKG BLD_HOME was %uxrt%\%bld_home%\lib it's now variable or \ports\'portname' How can I define this? ftp://os2ports.com/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/build_system -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:29:59 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: build.sh T.Sikora wrote: > I need to define a %port% directory for build.sh replacing $BLD_HOME > > examples: > > PATCHFILE=$BLD_HOME/patches/$ARCHIVE.diff > > $fname=$BLD_HOME/pre-process/$PKG > $fname=$BLD_HOME/build_$1.cmd > $fname=$BLD_HOME/makefiles/$ARCHIVE.mak > $fname=$BLD_HOME/post-process/$PKG > > BLD_HOME was %uxrt%\%bld_home%\lib > > it's now variable or > > \ports\'portname' > > How can I define this? > > ftp://os2ports.com/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/build_system > Maynard or Jeff (Somebody has to delegate the work) Feel like making a porting guideline or simple ux2bs port maintainer HowTo? Just look at the install\scripts\build.sh and the \ports directories. It's not hard to figure out. This was our ultimate goal. Providing a model for everyone to adhere to for building OS2-unix ports. The best decision we made was putting the FHS at root and keeping emx in root(legacy position). Now everything builds like a true unix port save for emx/os2 limitations. That's our next obstacle. I'm putting together a tried and proven patch kit for the emx headers to add to pkg_inst. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:51:28 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Urgent UX2BS rethink needed. John Poltorak wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 02:17:39PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >>We really need to rethink what were doing here. This thing is overly >>complicated and messy but it works. We are rapidly losing sight. We need >>to ask ourselves what is the ux2bs supposed to be? What is it's goal. >> >>Well it's supposed to be an integral part of the ux2 distribution, >>packages and all. It's also supposed to provide a development foundation >>for ux2 with a ports tree(ala FreeBSD) and be the standard for building >>OS/2 ports community wise. Am I right so far? > > > No. UX2BS is designed as a standalone system purely for building apps in a > standard environment. It is *not* part of a distribution system and has > not been designed as such. Why? I thought the ux2bs was a way to standarize ports and everyone adhere to how ux2 does it. The UnixOS/2 way. I don't see why it can't be an addon to it for developers. UnixOS/2 distro is the standard and the ux2bs should be part of it. Tee standard way for developers to build apps for it. I may be getting ahead of myself. > > My idea was to use it to create packages which could subsequently be > installed as part of a UnixOS/2 distro. They key to it was producing a > standard build environment. It is a *build* system principally and not an > installation system. Yeah I know and you proved it works. We been kicking around the idea about a ports directory in ux2. We were just a few directory changes away from that already. Not everyone needs to use it like in FreeBSD. If you want to just run Unix apps install the base and add packages. You want to build your own ports or develop apps install the ux2bs. It should all be an integral part and an addition. > > The installation of packages is something entirely different and should > not be integrated at this point. INSTALL_PKG is supposed to be the means > of installing packages, but there is no current standard method of > creating packages. doinst.sh works for me and thats just one more task that needs to be addressed. a -pkg variable for build.sh that instaed of installing it creates the ux2 package and puts it in /ports/packages. We alraedy have the guideline of how ux2 packages should be made. the dependance checking is another thing that needs to be done. If you notice I made a depend.lst in each port directory. The port maintainer adds them there and a routine we build ex; ux2_chkdep.cmd checks the depend.lst and check the filesystem or ux2 port install if they exist. > Could you just bear with me and give me a few days to prove my point. You already proved it can be done and many are yelling why can't we release it. We have the existing packages from the distro. Integrate it and start building what we need. If what I did is a utter failure I have backups of the old ux2bs. Give it and me a chance. Another problem arose when a few guys using it for the first time were amazed it did not integrate with the distro. In other words it was cool to try but pretty much worthless otherwise. > > >>-- >>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 6 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:15:18 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Urgent UX2BS rethink needed. On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 02:17:39PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > We really need to rethink what were doing here. This thing is overly > complicated and messy but it works. We are rapidly losing sight. We need > to ask ourselves what is the ux2bs supposed to be? What is it's goal. > > Well it's supposed to be an integral part of the ux2 distribution, > packages and all. It's also supposed to provide a development foundation > for ux2 with a ports tree(ala FreeBSD) and be the standard for building > OS/2 ports community wise. Am I right so far? No. UX2BS is designed as a standalone system purely for building apps in a standard environment. It is *not* part of a distribution system and has not been designed as such. My idea was to use it to create packages which could subsequently be installed as part of a UnixOS/2 distro. They key to it was producing a standard build environment. It is a *build* system principally and not an installation system. The installation of packages is something entirely different and should not be integrated at this point. INSTALL_PKG is supposed to be the means of installing packages, but there is no current standard method of creating packages. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:00:55 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Direction Hey folks, I think what we need to do right now, front and centre, is hammer out exactly what these systems were meant to be, and where we are now. Honestly now, I'm completely lost. My initial understanding of the projects was: A) UnixOS2 was to be a standard file-system lay-out, a few core environmental variables, and core DLLs that could be used by ported unix-like software. This would make not only developing/porting software more simple, but also the setup and running of said code 'cause theoretically everything should be "the same". B) UX2BS was to have a standard way for people to "custom-compile" their own copies of ported software so that it would work in the standard UnixOS2 environment and where developers would have a fairly stock set of tools to work with. (Not to mention the needed diffs and all the other goodies that go along with development). --- I'm not certain what direction everything is taking right now, but to me, both systems should theoretically live in the same "space" as they intend to do the same thing. Both systems are a means of installing software, whether it be downloading a ux2pkg or the source and compiling... both methods should end up putting the binaries, libraries, etc. in the same places. Two different paths to the same end. UnixOS2-proper for the most part just defines the structure, and gives the user a way to cleanly install and remove packages. It shouldn't really impact UnixOS2 if UX2BS is installed or not, both should play nicely together and really not any differently than adding any other developer's kit to an existing OS. I think what needs to be done right now is just take a pause and figure out what the details are that need to be laid out so that everyone is working on the same page. We have the FHS ( http://unix.os2site.com/pub/docs/unixos2_fhs.txt ) already, but we should be working up some additional docs just to make certain everything is clear. Nothing clobbers enthusiasm better'n getting half-way through working on something to find out it isn't what people were working towards! Better to have it all clear up front so we can keep working forward. And maybe get some CVS-action goin', too! Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:40:45 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Direction Jeff Robinson wrote: > Hey folks, > > I think what we need to do right now, front and centre, is hammer out > exactly what these systems were meant to be, and where we are now. > Honestly now, I'm completely lost. > > My initial understanding of the projects was: > A) UnixOS2 was to be a standard file-system lay-out, a few core > environmental variables, and core DLLs that could be used by ported > unix-like software. This would make not only developing/porting > software more simple, but also the setup and running of said code 'cause > theoretically everything should be "the same". > > B) UX2BS was to have a standard way for people to "custom-compile" their > own copies of ported software so that it would work in the standard > UnixOS2 environment and where developers would have a fairly stock set > of tools to work with. (Not to mention the needed diffs and all the > other goodies that go along with development). > > --- > > I'm not certain what direction everything is taking right now, but to > me, both systems should theoretically live in the same "space" as they > intend to do the same thing. > > Both systems are a means of installing software, whether it be > downloading a ux2pkg or the source and compiling... both methods should > end up putting the binaries, libraries, etc. in the same places. Two > different paths to the same end. UnixOS2-proper for the most part just > defines the structure, and gives the user a way to cleanly install and > remove packages. It shouldn't really impact UnixOS2 if UX2BS is > installed or not, both should play nicely together and really not any > differently than adding any other developer's kit to an existing OS. > > I think what needs to be done right now is just take a pause and figure > out what the details are that need to be laid out so that everyone is > working on the same page. We have the FHS ( > http://unix.os2site.com/pub/docs/unixos2_fhs.txt ) already, but we should > be working up some additional docs just to make certain everything is > clear. Nothing clobbers enthusiasm better'n getting half-way through > working on something to find out it isn't what people were working > towards! Better to have it all clear up front so we can keep working > forward. > > And maybe get some CVS-action goin', too! > > Jeff > Well I agree and I took the initiative to do it now. Everythings here just waiting to be used so like my dad used to say "What are you waiting for Christmas?" Well going by all I heard and what seems to be the general consensus I integrated the ux2bs into ux2. It's just like an add-on package. You don't need it to run apps and it does not change ux2 if you don't use it after it's installed. Most importantly everything we build on it fits right in. In other words it's all in place. You want to port or update a build for ux2 go in /ports and build it. It it does not exist add it. We *will* need port maintainers! Well just a %port% variable in build.sh is needed and it should work 100%. I left no detail untouched. Like I said before I use the ux2 packages for my own builds and it's pretty damn good. Alex Newman thought it works pretty good too. Right now except for about 3 3rd party ports in /baseline's root everything relies on ux2 packages. emx and gcc are manadatory and what it's based on so those are a given. Give it a chance. Everything everyone discussed in the past I did. Once it works smoothly the only changes should be in the env. Python should build on it and so will quite a few others. Just a few dependancies short from even Mozilla building. Can anyone help me with the %port% variable for build.sh? I'm kind of against a stonewall with it. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:16:20 +0950 (CST) From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems Hi All, Just found out about UX2BS as I'm trying to build a current version of Gphoto2. Have some issues with the latest version of ux2bs_inst.cmd First problem - the script tries to download /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emxrt.zip which doesn't exist - the file is actually in /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emx/emxrt.zip Secondly, the script calls "unzip -uo e:\ux2_base.zip e:" - unzip 5.50 reports an error from this caution: filename not matched: e: unzip is expecting a list of files ie * in the position that the script is placing the destination for the extraction. Changing each unzip operation from "unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip %uxrt%" to "%uxrt% unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip" seems to be working.. Also, shouldn't the script be downloading its own copy of unzip.exe so that there are no pre-requisites for the package? Keep up the good work on the package - it's a cool thing you're doing. Cheers, Paul. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:56:50 +0950 (CST) From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: Re: ux2bs_inst.cmd Problems Further to my previous note, the script also trys to do the following: call pkg_inst - but pkg_inst.cmd isn't in either the current directory - or the path so fails. Same with "call emx_inst" & "Call gcc_inst" Cheers, Paul. On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:16:20 +0950 (CST), Paul Smedley wrote: >Hi All, >Just found out about UX2BS as I'm trying to build a current version of Gphoto2. > >Have some issues with the latest version of ux2bs_inst.cmd > >First problem - the script tries to download /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emxrt.zip which >doesn't exist - the file is actually in /pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline/emx/emxrt.zip > >Secondly, the script calls >"unzip -uo e:\ux2_base.zip e:" - unzip 5.50 reports an error from this caution: filename not >matched: e: > >unzip is expecting a list of files ie * in the position that the script is placing the destination for >the extraction. > >Changing each unzip operation from >"unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip %uxrt%" > >to > >"%uxrt% >unzip -uo %uxrt%\ux2_base.zip" seems to be working.. > >Also, shouldn't the script be downloading its own copy of unzip.exe so that there are no >pre-requisites for the package? > >Keep up the good work on the package - it's a cool thing you're doing. > >Cheers, > >Paul. > >_______________________________________________ >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 11 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:28:59 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: build.sh T.Sikora wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> I need to define a %port% directory for build.sh replacing $BLD_HOME >> >> examples: >> >> PATCHFILE=$BLD_HOME/patches/$ARCHIVE.diff >> >> $fname=$BLD_HOME/pre-process/$PKG >> $fname=$BLD_HOME/build_$1.cmd >> $fname=$BLD_HOME/makefiles/$ARCHIVE.mak >> $fname=$BLD_HOME/post-process/$PKG >> >> BLD_HOME was %uxrt%\%bld_home%\lib >> >> it's now variable or >> >> \ports\'portname' >> >> How can I define this? > we need: %port_home% = %uxrt%\ports\$pname $pname= portname and same as directory Can someone help with making build.sh work with this? Look in install\scripts build.cmd and build.sh to get an idea. This is the only thing stopping us now. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs