Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 02:47:48 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 181 ************************************************** Saturday 23 August 2003 Number 181 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Perl problems : Paul Smedley" 2 Re: rsync and wget : T.Sikora" 3 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 4 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 5 ux2bs_update : T.Sikora" 6 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 7 baseline : T.Sikora" 8 filesystem complaints : T.Sikora" 9 CFLAGS : T.Sikora" 10 GCC builds : T.Sikora" 11 Re: Autoconf : Andreas Buening 12 Re: Autoconf : John Poltorak 13 Re: Autoconf : Jeff Robinson 14 Autoconf : Paul Smedley" 15 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 16 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 17 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 18 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 19 Re: Autoconf : T.Sikora" 20 Re: Autoconf : Jeff Robinson 21 Re: Autoconf : Paul Smedley" 22 Re: Autoconf : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:56:46 +0950 (CST) From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: Re: Perl problems Ted, On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 07:58:47 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> Their perfect just like mine. If theres any problems in the ports tree >> 'ports_refresh' will fix it. It's pretty quick. Just cd to /ports/perl >> and run 'build perl'. >> > >Did gmp, gdbm, and ufc(I know that did from your logs) at the end? It appears from crypt.log, gdbm.log & gmp.log that they all built correctly at the end of the ux2bs_inst.. > >In retrospect perl harness failed because make install failed somehow. >perl harness is the absolute last step... weird. This is the output from 'make install' in e:\ports\perl\workdir\perl-5.8.0 - same with either sh or bash as shell: make[1]: Entering directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0' AutoSplitting perl library LD_LIBRARY_PATH=E:/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0 ./miniperl -Ilib -e 'use AutoSp lit; \ autosplit_lib_modules( at ARGV)' lib/*.pm LD_LIBRARY_PATH=E:/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0 ./miniperl -Ilib -e 'use AutoSp lit; \ autosplit_lib_modules( at ARGV)' lib/*/*.pm make lib/re.pm make[2]: Entering directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0' make[2]: `lib/re.pm' is up to date. make[2]: Leaving directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0' Making DynaLoader (static_pic) make[2]: Entering directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0/ext/DynaLoader' make[2]: 0: Command not found make[2]: Leaving directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0/ext/DynaLoader' make config failed, continuing anyway... make[2]: Entering directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0/ext/DynaLoader' make[2]: 0: Command not found make[2]: Leaving directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0/ext/DynaLoader' make[1]: *** [lib/auto/DynaLoader/DynaLoader.lib] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0' make: *** [install] Error 2 [localhost|e:/ports/perl/workdir/perl-5.8.0] Cheers, Paul. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:54:21 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: rsync and wget Jeff Robinson wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 07:29:32AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >>> Rsync and wget are causing all the problems. They both will not >>> mirror a directory with changed files. Rsync fails and wget won't >>> redownlaod changed files. >> >> >> >> You sure about this? >> >> I'm sure I've used RSYNC to retreive only changed files. >> > > Yeah, I sort've thought this was the purpose of rsync, so that you > didn't have to download a whole new server-load of files each time...: It is and works on all my nix machines but it's broken on OS/2. It gives a permission denied error on rename. That's why I stopped using it on powerusersbbs.net long ago. I couldn't mirror with it without deleting it first. It works as a server fine and let's you download clean but that's it after you have it. > > DESCRIPTION > > rsync is a program that behaves in much the same way that > rcp does, but has many more options and uses the rsync > remote-update protocol to greatly speedup file transfers > when the destination file already exists. > > The rsync remote-update protocol allows rsync to transfer > just the differences between two sets of files across the > network link, using an efficient checksum-search algorithm > described in the technical report that accompanies this > package. > > (from http://www.hmug.org/man/1/rsync.html ) > > Jeff -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:12:47 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf Paul Smedley wrote: > > Next problem - autoconf. > > Going into the Sane directory, and trying to start autoconf, I get the following: > [unixos2 E:\dev\sane\sane-backends-1.0.10-pre3>sh > # autoconf > SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > > > Any ideas? Use bash!!! sh has big problems. I usually do bash aclocal autoconf ./configure --prefix=/usr > > Also, is there a newer version of Autoconf that can readily be installed with UX2BS? > > Gphoto requires at least 2.52 of Autoconf. Tried installing v2.53r2 from Hobbes but > following the instructions didn't work :( I would try this first. I have had no problems with it. > > 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 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:19:24 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf John Poltorak wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 09:26:28PM +0950, Paul Smedley wrote: > >>Hi Andreas, >> >>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:03:32 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: >> >>>Paul Smedley wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>> >>>>Next problem - autoconf. >>>> >>>>Going into the Sane directory, and trying to start autoconf, I get the following: >>>>[unixos2 E:\dev\sane\sane-backends-1.0.10-pre3>sh >>>># autoconf >>>>SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. >>> >>>Looks like you haven't set EMXSHELL to your unix shell. >>>e.g. SET EMXSHELL=sh Perl has problems with it. You can add it in /etc/ux2_local (user defined settings) >> >>Yep that stopped the SYS1079's - hopefully Ted will see this and add that statement to >>ux2_conf.cmd or whichever env cmd he chooses :) >> >> > This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to > happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools would be > downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran ux2_bootstrap. > > I doubt whether anyone has a standard build environment now, which was my > principle aim when I put the thing together in the first place. It's the same unless they change it. You can't control what people do to it. The autoconf should be updated I'll try it but what it has now works for most. > > >>Paul. > > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:26:06 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: ux2bs_update You guys can run ux2_update. Just a minor fix or break depending on how you look at it. I set it up to use ux2shell and gccshell(the icons some hate). build.cmd calls ux2_env which negates the gcc environment in the gccshell so I removed the call to ux2_env in it. The drawback... if you run a plain os/2 window you will have to run sbin\ux2_env and etc\gcc_local but you will have to define it yourself. Right now gccshell sets the gcc env then calls gcc_local for user settings. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:39:26 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > >> This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to >> happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools >> would be downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran >> ux2_bootstrap. John it's exactly like you built it. Nothing's changed. It's just complete relying on ux2 packages as much as possible and dumped onto the ux2_base package. One exception I took the build part of it, cleaned it up and put it into a ports tree. That's all. There's more tools but it's 90% like you had it. >> >> I doubt whether anyone has a standard build environment now, which was >> my principle aim when I put the thing together in the first place. It's standardized after they run the bootstrap what happens afterwards is anyones guess. > > > It's the same unless they change it. You can't control what people do to > it. The autoconf should be updated I'll try it but what it has now works > for most. > \ I added a ports_update and ux2bs_update. The ports tree is synced against the master server and mirrored so if any new ports have been added. ux2bs_update update the core files that runs the build system and the bells and whistles like clean(removes the workdir) and the env commands. >> I'm working on adding -pkg and -gcc to the build command so: build -pkg perl will package the port up and put it in /ports/package build -gcc perl uses gcc-3.2.1 instaed of the emx default. Then I can dump those shells. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:54:57 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: baseline This is how baseline should be: ftp://os2ports.com/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/baseline You will have to do it manually because of rsync problems and either wget does not mirror ftp sites or I do not know how to use it. If you have it already installed it won't matter but if you plan on a reinstall *it does*. The stuff ux2bs relies on for the install is in the subs. The /archives root are the sources for the ports tree. If they don't exist the build command will automagically get it for you and put it there.(Everyone thank John again) It's defined in the /ports/aux-tools/build.table. Other than that let's get it perfect. If 3 people complain of real problems with autoconf we'll replace it next. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:04:00 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: filesystem complaints Everyone here knows the problems we had with it and why we came up with the UX2-FHS http://os2ports.com/docs/unixos2/unixos2_fhs.txt To build anything reliably it has to be in this structure and at root. Even then drive letters still cause occassional problems. So be prepared if you put it on your OS/2 root drive. It is designed to be on it's own partition or drive. It will create these. bin/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root boot/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root dev/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root emx/ etc/ 72 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root home/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root install/ 80 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root lib/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root proc/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root root/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root sbin/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root tmp/ 48 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root usr/ 360 010525 18:00:40 rwxr-xr-x root/root var/ 216 010525 18:00:42 rwxr-xr-x root/root -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:14:25 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: CFLAGS I been trying to build Perl with gcc-3.2.1 and a major obstacle is: cc1.exe: warning: -malign-loops is obsolete, use -falign-loops cc1.exe: warning: -malign-jumps is obsolete, use -falign-jumps cc1.exe: warning: -malign-functions is obsolete, use -falign-functions I defined this in gcc_local and it made no difference, any ideas? SET CFLAGS='-falign-loops -falign-jumps -falign-functions' John I noticed you have a $MAKEPARM, $CFGPARM and $CFLAGS defined in build.sh Could I add them directly in build_port.cmd with CFLAGS='-falign-loops -falign-jumps -falign-functions' or would I have to put say CFLAGS=/ports/$PKG/scripts/cflags in build.sh and put it in a cflags file? -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:25:19 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: GCC builds gdbm, gmp, and crypt all build fine with 3.2.1. Go in there and do a clean and build in the GCC shell. You need to do a ux2bs_update first. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:03:32 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Autoconf Paul Smedley wrote: [snip] > Next problem - autoconf. > > Going into the Sane directory, and trying to start autoconf, I get the following: > [unixos2 E:\dev\sane\sane-backends-1.0.10-pre3>sh > # autoconf > SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. Looks like you haven't set EMXSHELL to your unix shell. e.g. SET EMXSHELL=sh > Also, is there a newer version of Autoconf that can readily be installed with UX2BS? > > Gphoto requires at least 2.52 of Autoconf. Tried installing v2.53r2 from Hobbes but > following the instructions didn't work :( You can try http://unix.os2site.com/pub/source/autoconf/autoconf-2_57.zip or if you want to try the first "binary" release: http://unix.os2site.com/pub/binary/autoconf/autoconf-2_57-bin.zip If you still have problems please give a more detailed description. Bye, Andreas _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:16:48 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Autoconf On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 09:26:28PM +0950, Paul Smedley wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:03:32 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: > >Paul Smedley wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> Next problem - autoconf. > >> > >> Going into the Sane directory, and trying to start autoconf, I get the following: > >> [unixos2 E:\dev\sane\sane-backends-1.0.10-pre3>sh > >> # autoconf > >> SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > > > >Looks like you haven't set EMXSHELL to your unix shell. > >e.g. SET EMXSHELL=sh > Yep that stopped the SYS1079's - hopefully Ted will see this and add that statement to > ux2_conf.cmd or whichever env cmd he chooses :) > > >> Also, is there a newer version of Autoconf that can readily be installed with UX2BS? > >> > >> Gphoto requires at least 2.52 of Autoconf. Tried installing v2.53r2 from Hobbes but > >> following the instructions didn't work :( > > > >You can try http://unix.os2site.com/pub/source/autoconf/autoconf-2_57.zip > >or if you want to try the first "binary" release: > >http://unix.os2site.com/pub/binary/autoconf/autoconf-2_57-bin.zip > >If you still have problems please give a more detailed description. > Will try this tomorrow night - thanks for your help. This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools would be downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran ux2_bootstrap. I doubt whether anyone has a standard build environment now, which was my principle aim when I put the thing together in the first place. > > Paul. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:24:34 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Autoconf T.Sikora wrote: > Andreas Buening wrote: > >> John Poltorak wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to >>> happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools >>> would be >>> downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran ux2_bootstrap. > > > Jesus WHAT IS HIS PROBLEM! It still does that but uses all the ux2 > packages and builds the ones missing instead of just 'plain missing like > before'. If it does not work replace it or build it. I'm really starting > to get irritated. If we follow his plan we will be doing just what Dave > wants.. building Perl over and over and nothing else. I guess he feels > that's all it should do. > I think my take on the whole situation is part of what can make "open source" projects difficult for some people. The idea of having what you've worked on suddenly "not yours" anymore. It was something I wrestled with a bit myself when I opened my projects up; though the trick really is to find the balance between what you original want a project to be and the reality of achieving it; plus taking suggestions from other folks. Though honestly, this isn't really a "loss of control" of a project. It's an straight-forward fork, and that's it. Though other'n the work Ted has been doing in the last while I haven't seen much progress in anything, so if it takes a fork to keep the project going, so be it. >> autoconf in ux2bs is outdated (as well as some packages). For some >> packages you need the latest version (also of automake). >> > So make a ux2 package from your ports or give use the makefiles... > freakin boneheads. > > Am I wrong? Am I the jerk? Please tell me cause I'll back off if I am. > Now I know exactly what Alexander Mai was talking about. I didn't see it > before. John is really starting to push me over the edge. > My biggest "beef" is that sometimes I get lost in the stuff that you're (Ted) working on, but that could just be my 5-minute-memory problem, too! It certainly seems that what you've been working on seems to work and is relatively straight-forward. Now it just needs the documentation, right? I'll make you a deal, if you do the documentation then I'll build you an icon for the UX2BS shell! > Well I can put his old archives back and bring this to unixos2.com as a > base ux2 install then add a package select feature after perl builds. > You can select additional packages to install and they can download on > the fly. It's all in place I just have to rewrite a copy of build.sh to > do that. Is this a viable option? This may be my/our only alternative. > I think the biggest thing is that stuff should be relatively straight-forward to get and install, be it either with a package or from source. Sure, I may be a "developer", but I don't want to spend a week getting build-system together either! In the Linux-world compiling packages from source isn't as much a big deal as everything pretty much fits in already, but here it's different. I don't mind compiling but heck, a ux2package, WarpIN file, or whatever is fine with me. I wanted it installed and working so I can do what I really want to do! Whatever is in the best interest of the project should be the choice. We can try to make "concessions" to have different systems, but not at the expense of making things so convoluted we can't get anything done. Just my little bit of input, Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:28:48 +0950 (CST) From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: Autoconf OK I seem to have managed to get Perl to build OK. I did try building it under GCC 3.2.1 and it seemed to get a bit further but still died. Then tried again to build with GCC 2.8.0 and it worked :) I think that GCC 3.2.1 got it that little bit further to the point where perlB12E.dll was built and installed into e:\usr\lib - then the GCC 2.8 build could would as miniperl.exe would no longer cause a SYS1808. Next problem - autoconf. Going into the Sane directory, and trying to start autoconf, I get the following: [unixos2 E:\dev\sane\sane-backends-1.0.10-pre3>sh # autoconf SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. Any ideas? Also, is there a newer version of Autoconf that can readily be installed with UX2BS? Gphoto requires at least 2.52 of Autoconf. Tried installing v2.53r2 from Hobbes but following the instructions didn't work :( Cheers, Paul. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:37:37 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > [snip] > > >>This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to >>happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools would be >>downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran ux2_bootstrap. > > > autoconf in ux2bs is outdated (as well as some packages). For some > packages you need the latest version (also of automake). > > Could you put them into a ux2 package? -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:04:07 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > [snip] > > >>This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to >>happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools would be >>downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran ux2_bootstrap. Jesus WHAT IS HIS PROBLEM! It still does that but uses all the ux2 packages and builds the ones missing instead of just 'plain missing like before'. If it does not work replace it or build it. I'm really starting to get irritated. If we follow his plan we will be doing just what Dave wants.. building Perl over and over and nothing else. I guess he feels that's all it should do. And this minumuuum jeez I can't even spell I'm so mad... baseline shit. Then how do we make ux2 packages..wish them into being? Gad nobody's selecting anything it's in there and some feel it's old!!! &*&*$%%#&^*&(*(_+_++_ Replace the $%%#$ thing then. ..."Well we shouldn't have to do that." ??????? > > > autoconf in ux2bs is outdated (as well as some packages). For some > packages you need the latest version (also of automake). > So make a ux2 package from your ports or give use the makefiles... freakin boneheads. Am I wrong? Am I the jerk? Please tell me cause I'll back off if I am. Now I know exactly what Alexander Mai was talking about. I didn't see it before. John is really starting to push me over the edge. I started with him on the ground floor and we were agreed this was the direction but as time went on this minimal shit kept recurring. Don't add this, don't add that. We have to build everything on the fly with bootstrap. Well I can put his old archives back and bring this to unixos2.com as a base ux2 install then add a package select feature after perl builds. You can select additional packages to install and they can download on the fly. It's all in place I just have to rewrite a copy of build.sh to do that. Is this a viable option? This may be my/our only alternative. > > [snip] > > > Bye, > Andreas > _______________________________________________ > UX2BS mailing list > UX2BS at os2ports.com > http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:23:45 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf T.Sikora wrote: > Andreas Buening wrote: > > > Well I can put his old archives back and bring this to unixos2.com as a > base ux2 install then add a package select feature after perl builds. > You can select additional packages to install and they can download on > the fly. It's all in place I just have to rewrite a copy of build.sh to > do that. Is this a viable option? This may be my/our only alternative. > >> [snip] I think maybe that is the only diplomatic alternative. I can stop the build on the fly stuff on install and just package gmp, gdbm, ufc, and perl for ux2 and terminate the install with a pop-up additional package select like I suggested or a dialog driven menu select for the distro packages. It will stay the same and we can build up the ports section. Actually the more I think about this UX2BS should be seperate and designing the mechanisms for this. It really should be UX2-Development UX2 or UX2-Ports list? If you guys suggest it John may agree but coming from me... huh...I don't even want to answer that. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:32:19 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf T.Sikora wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> Andreas Buening wrote: >> > >> >> Well I can put his old archives back and bring this to unixos2.com as >> a base ux2 install then add a package select feature after perl >> builds. You can select additional packages to install and they can >> download on the fly. It's all in place I just have to rewrite a copy >> of build.sh to do that. Is this a viable option? This may be my/our >> only alternative. >> >>> [snip] > > > I think maybe that is the only diplomatic alternative. I can stop the > build on the fly stuff on install and just package gmp, gdbm, ufc, and > perl for ux2 and terminate the install with a pop-up additional package > select like I suggested or a dialog driven menu select for the distro > packages. It will stay the same and we can build up the ports section. > Actually the more I think about this UX2BS should be seperate and > designing the mechanisms for this. It really should be UX2-Development > UX2 or UX2-Ports list? If you guys suggest it John may agree but coming > from me... huh...I don't even want to answer that. > The best part of this plan is we have someone to bitch at if it does not work right. We bring it to the development list. The mozilla port won't build cause sed is broken give us a working makefile for the new version. Yeah I'm dreaming but it should be like that. Not this build all, minamaallist build system that does everything on the fly. Where does that fit in? I'm still baffled by that. This bootstrap thing is a good idea but to install something. It's the means to and end. What are you going to do string a list a mile long of ports building with one script? Damn that's totaly bizzare? -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:28:37 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Autoconf Jeff Robinson wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> Andreas Buening wrote: >> >>> John Poltorak wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> >>>> This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to >>>> happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools >>>> would be >>>> downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran ux2_bootstrap. >> >> >> >> Jesus WHAT IS HIS PROBLEM! It still does that but uses all the ux2 >> packages and builds the ones missing instead of just 'plain missing >> like before'. If it does not work replace it or build it. I'm really >> starting to get irritated. If we follow his plan we will be doing just >> what Dave wants.. building Perl over and over and nothing else. I >> guess he feels that's all it should do. >> > > I think my take on the whole situation is part of what can make "open > source" projects difficult for some people. The idea of having what > you've worked on suddenly "not yours" anymore. It was something I When he left I was begging him and anyone for 4 months to take control or at least give someone control over it with his approval. No answer but he was talking to others. It does not take much of an imagination to figure out what I thought and felt and the hostility from him and a few others hasn't helped. Before he dropped out we were doing lots of stuff together daily like the sendmail side project. > wrestled with a bit myself when I opened my projects up; though the > trick really is to find the balance between what you original want a > project to be and the reality of achieving it; plus taking suggestions > from other folks. I really should do this myself but he's extremely hostile towards me. If I/we fork it, it may make matters worse. If it's just me it's over already. I think this was a last ditch effort to save it. > > Though honestly, this isn't really a "loss of control" of a project. > It's an straight-forward fork, and that's it. Though other'n the work > Ted has been doing in the last while I haven't seen much progress in > anything, so if it takes a fork to keep the project going, so be it. Yeah but at what expense? Can it still be UnixOS2? We really need his input on this as a guide. > >>> autoconf in ux2bs is outdated (as well as some packages). For some >>> packages you need the latest version (also of automake). >>> >> So make a ux2 package from your ports or give use the makefiles... >> freakin boneheads. >> >> Am I wrong? Am I the jerk? Please tell me cause I'll back off if I am. >> Now I know exactly what Alexander Mai was talking about. I didn't see >> it before. John is really starting to push me over the edge. >> > > My biggest "beef" is that sometimes I get lost in the stuff that you're > (Ted) working on, but that could just be my 5-minute-memory problem, I know this won't help but that's my usual state when working on it. I don't even know where I'm going with it but I'm driven. I guess I seized the opportunity since nobody gave a damn about it and it was all but dead and forgotten. When I resurected it and it failed he screamed at me what did I do. I did nothing but put 'his' stuff back online untouched. > too! It certainly seems that what you've been working on seems to work > and is relatively straight-forward. Now it just needs the > documentation, right? I'll make you a deal, if you do the documentation > then I'll build you an icon for the UX2BS shell! I been putting it off but I guess I'll have to.... > >> Well I can put his old archives back and bring this to unixos2.com as >> a base ux2 install then add a package select feature after perl >> builds. You can select additional packages to install and they can >> download on the fly. It's all in place I just have to rewrite a copy >> of build.sh to do that. Is this a viable option? This may be my/our >> only alternative. >> > > I think the biggest thing is that stuff should be relatively > straight-forward to get and install, be it either with a package or from > source. Sure, I may be a "developer", but I don't want to spend a week > getting build-system together either! In the Linux-world compiling > packages from source isn't as much a big deal as everything pretty much > fits in already, but here it's different. I don't mind compiling but > heck, a ux2package, WarpIN file, or whatever is fine with me. I wanted > it installed and working so I can do what I really want to do! > > Whatever is in the best interest of the project should be the choice. We > can try to make "concessions" to have different systems, but not at the > expense of making things so convoluted we can't get anything done. > > Just my little bit of input, I need some advice or input because I'm this || close to pulling the plug on it forever and the lists. Hell it works for me so I'll use it. If I have no confirmation very soon that it's worthwhile it's gone. If everyone honestly feels I'm fucking it up I'd like to know now. > > Jeff > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:45:21 -0500 From: Jeff Robinson Subject: Re: Autoconf T.Sikora wrote: > Jeff Robinson wrote: > >> I think my take on the whole situation is part of what can make "open >> source" projects difficult for some people. The idea of having what >> you've worked on suddenly "not yours" anymore. It was something I > > > When he left I was begging him and anyone for 4 months to take control > or at least give someone control over it with his approval. No answer > but he was talking to others. It does not take much of an imagination to > figure out what I thought and felt and the hostility from him and a few > others hasn't helped. Before he dropped out we were doing lots of stuff > together daily like the sendmail side project. > It's like I've been saying for a while... we need some delegation and a bit of decentralisation. If only one personal basically has "control" over everything and they decide they're not interested anymore and disappear from the outside world... what happens to the project? Does everyone hold their breath and wait, or continue on in the same direction unflagging, or branch off? >> wrestled with a bit myself when I opened my projects up; though the >> trick really is to find the balance between what you original want a >> project to be and the reality of achieving it; plus taking suggestions >> from other folks. > > > I really should do this myself but he's extremely hostile towards me. > If I/we fork it, it may make matters worse. If it's just me it's over > already. I think this was a last ditch effort to save it. > Well, forking it shouldn't necessarily be a decision made just in a few minutes... gotta avoid the "heat of the moment" things. Like I mentioned, we have to look at what is working for the projects, but also what is easiest to maintain and work with. My big thing is that we decide on what we want to do and re-align the UnixOS2 and UX2BS projects so that we're using the same directory structure, etc., etc. blah blah blah... y'know. There has been a lot of work that has went into both sides of it and I don't think anything should be abandoned... but once we get this stuff down in hard copy and get people playing along, things should go much smoother. I just have a few authors that I need to contact once I get some confirmation about how things're supposed to go and we'll get a few more packages added. >> >> Though honestly, this isn't really a "loss of control" of a project. >> It's an straight-forward fork, and that's it. Though other'n the work >> Ted has been doing in the last while I haven't seen much progress in >> anything, so if it takes a fork to keep the project going, so be it. > > > Yeah but at what expense? Can it still be UnixOS2? We really need his > input on this as a guide. > That's a tough question, and I don't know how one would necessarily calculate the "expense". Often what happens in forks are when they diverge a lot from the original idea and spin into a separate project. If both forks show equal merit for what they're trying to approach, they'll both continue on. If one way serves the purpose that people were looking for than the other, support will swing that way. And in some projects both sides have eventually recombined again (gcc + egcs) to make a better final project anyways. So is there really a long-term expense? Seeing that it is open source, if one side does end up not being used, it does not mean it is dead or that the code was for nothing... it could be picked up later or re-used or whatever. >> My biggest "beef" is that sometimes I get lost in the stuff that >> you're (Ted) working on, but that could just be my 5-minute-memory >> problem, > > > I know this won't help but that's my usual state when working on > it. I don't even know where I'm going with it but I'm driven. > I guess I seized the opportunity since nobody gave a damn about it and > it was all but dead and forgotten. When I resurected it and it failed he > screamed at me what did I do. I did nothing but put 'his' stuff back > online untouched. > Well, that's sort've the thing... I don't know how much work had been going on in the meantime with the whole UX2BS (or UnixOS2, for that matter). I can't really talk about the approach or anything, but I just like to get an idea what is going on before/during the whole process. Though of course, from writing my own software I know that I hate to take time in the middle to explain it to people when it takes away from my coding time. Documentation is a tough "art" to learn; but it's very important. Needless to say one can really end up freaking out folks 'cause a big change can feel like the rug has been pulled out from under us. I know I was lost for a while, but it all seems to work well now... though I still have to learn to navigate and where all the goodies are hidden and stuff. >> too! It certainly seems that what you've been working on seems to >> work and is relatively straight-forward. Now it just needs the >> documentation, right? I'll make you a deal, if you do the >> documentation then I'll build you an icon for the UX2BS shell! > > > I been putting it off but I guess I'll have to.... > If you drop me some brief notes on how to make my own port, I can write up instructions using "Plogg" (my mp3/Ogg-player front-end) as an example. It's a fairly straight-forward small project so may serve well for that. > > > I need some advice or input because I'm this || close to pulling the > plug on it forever and the lists. Hell it works for me so I'll use it. > If I have no confirmation very soon that it's worthwhile it's gone. If > everyone honestly feels I'm fucking it up I'd like to know now. > I would just take a bit of time to let things simmer... considering you just got everything pretty much hammered out yesterday, that isn't much time for feedback. I know I waited a while to try it out just as I didn't want to go through the big steps again and again. If it makes you feel any better, I had to wait about 1.5 years before I started getting feedback on JamochaMUD... at all! Now it seems to have a passel of folks that watch for new releases and have signed up as bug-squishers. (Part of why I encourage you to have all that kind've stuff in place, so it's there when people want to use it!) Oh... and with a lot of stuff... it seems more often than not you'll hear about the negative experiences more than anything else. I don't think I let to many people know if the software works as expected... Jeff -- ---------------- Whatza JamochaMUD? http://jamochamud.anecho.mb.ca Or other stuff: http://www.anecho.mb.ca/~jeffnik ----------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:26:28 +0950 (CST) From: "Paul Smedley" Subject: Re: Autoconf Hi Andreas, On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:03:32 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: >Paul Smedley wrote: > >[snip] > >> Next problem - autoconf. >> >> Going into the Sane directory, and trying to start autoconf, I get the following: >> [unixos2 E:\dev\sane\sane-backends-1.0.10-pre3>sh >> # autoconf >> SYS1079: << was unexpected at this time. > >Looks like you haven't set EMXSHELL to your unix shell. >e.g. SET EMXSHELL=sh Yep that stopped the SYS1079's - hopefully Ted will see this and add that statement to ux2_conf.cmd or whichever env cmd he chooses :) >> Also, is there a newer version of Autoconf that can readily be installed with UX2BS? >> >> Gphoto requires at least 2.52 of Autoconf. Tried installing v2.53r2 from Hobbes but >> following the instructions didn't work :( > >You can try http://unix.os2site.com/pub/source/autoconf/autoconf-2_57.zip >or if you want to try the first "binary" release: >http://unix.os2site.com/pub/binary/autoconf/autoconf-2_57-bin.zip >If you still have problems please give a more detailed description. Will try this tomorrow night - thanks for your help. Paul. _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:35:30 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Autoconf John Poltorak wrote: [snip] > This choice of having to select the right autoconf isn't supposed to > happen. The way I originally set up UX2BS, all the required tools would be > downloaded or built, and installed as soon as you ran ux2_bootstrap. autoconf in ux2bs is outdated (as well as some packages). For some packages you need the latest version (also of automake). [snip] Bye, Andreas _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs