Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:07:03 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 265 ************************************************** Friday 23 January 2004 Number 265 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Any new UX2BS testers? : Dave and Natalie" 2 Re: Any new UX2BS testers? : Andreas Buening 3 Well, I just tried the new build system. : Jack Troughton 4 Re: Well, I just tried the new build system. : John Poltorak 5 Re: Well, I just tried the new build system. : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 6 Re: Well, I just tried the new build system. : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:11:50 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Any new UX2BS testers? On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:40:29 +0100, knut st. osmundsen wrote: >Yes, I have UX2BS installed but I'm currently using my gcc environment >to build gettext. Btw. I'm not trying to build 0.11.x or 0.12.x, so I >don't know which trouble you've ran into there. With 0.13 I had to fix a >couple of code issues before it built on OS/2. I've yet no idea if it >works, but at least now it builds here. :-) What about libiconv? IIRC gettext has a circular dependency on gnulibiconv. Libiconv did build out of the box (configure build) a few versions ago though you ended up with a big dll (well over 1Mb). One problem I have is the iconv that comes with gcc3.2x seems incompatible with gnu libiconv. I have programs linked against both here. Dave New Email Address - please update your Address book dave_yeo at paralynx.com _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:06:55 +0100 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Any new UX2BS testers? James M Moe wrote: > > knut st. osmundsen wrote: > > I know, but ash on OS/2 is still way slower than bash running on a linux > > box with a quarter of the CPU speed. > > > Does anyone know why? > I've often wondered about that but never looked into it. Is it really > because of fork()? No other app seems to display such relative CPU needs. I think so. Linux ports most likely use vfork() instead of fork() which can be much faster because it doesn't do a real fork. Bye, Andreas _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:27:54 -0500 From: Jack Troughton Subject: Well, I just tried the new build system. Seeing the plaintive pleas for new testers and all that:) I also want to try to port nmap, as I have a need for a good network scanner here now. It all seemed to be going well until it got in an endless loop starting the os/2 selective install program. I ended up having to kill it. I also needed to reboot because of hung detached emx processes (emxload, emxomf, as, cc1, cpp, gcc). Anyone know what's up with that? Why would it be firing up c:\os2\install\install.exe? I tried finding out where it was calling it from, but didn't have a lot of luck. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * * Kingston Ontario Canada news://news.consultron.ca * ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:30:07 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Well, I just tried the new build system. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:27:54PM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > Seeing the plaintive pleas for new testers and all that:) > > I also want to try to port nmap, as I have a need for a good network > scanner here now. I believe there already is a port of nmap somewhere, although I never managed to make any sense of it when I tried it. > It all seemed to be going well until it got in an endless loop starting > the os/2 selective install program. > > I ended up having to kill it. I also needed to reboot because of hung > detached emx processes (emxload, emxomf, as, cc1, cpp, gcc). > > Anyone know what's up with that? Why would it be firing up > c:\os2\install\install.exe? I tried finding out where it was calling it > from, but didn't have a lot of luck. You'll need to provide a little bit more information for someone to have any inkling of where anything has gone wrong. Running ux2_bootstrap can go on for several hours if it is fairly successful. 'going well' is a little bit vague. Please provide some indication as to how far it actually got. You may have something like an install log (ux2bs_install.log) which may provide a few clues as to how far things progressed. Maybe post the last few lines - but not all of it. > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca * > * http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca * > * Kingston Ontario Canada news://news.consultron.ca * > ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:08:51 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Well, I just tried the new build system. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:27:54PM -0500, Jack Troughton wrote: > Anyone know what's up with that? Why would it be firing up > c:\os2\install\install.exe? I tried finding out where it > was calling it from, but didn't have a lot of luck. Wild guess: It's actually relying on finding /usr/bin/install.exe in the path and for whatever reason /usr/bin is either not in your path or doesn't contain install.exe, so it falls back to the first install.exe it can find via path ... HTH, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:24:53 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Well, I just tried the new build system. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:08:51AM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:27:54PM -0500, Jack Troughton > wrote: > > Anyone know what's up with that? Why would it be firing up > > c:\os2\install\install.exe? I tried finding out where it > > was calling it from, but didn't have a lot of luck. > > Wild guess: It's actually relying on finding > /usr/bin/install.exe in the path and for > whatever reason /usr/bin is either not in your > path or doesn't contain install.exe, so it > falls back to the first install.exe it can > find via path ... This can't happen if UX2BS is installed properly since it creates its own restricted environment which does not include c:\os2\install\install.exe. It sounds as though UX2BS has not been installed correctly. > HTH, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs