Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:07:02 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 287 ************************************************** Thursday 18 March 2004 Number 287 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Building Blackbox : T.Sikora" 2 Re: Building Blackbox : John Poltorak 3 Re: Building Blackbox : John Poltorak 4 Re: Installation behind proxy : John Poltorak 5 Re: Building Blackbox : Dave and Natalie" 6 Re: Building Blackbox : Dave and Natalie" 7 Re: Building Blackbox : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 8 Re: Building Blackbox : John Poltorak 9 Re: Installation behind proxy : Christoph Kloeters" 10 Re: Installation behind proxy : John Poltorak 11 Re: Installation behind proxy : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:15:34 -0500 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Building Blackbox Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > >>Same error as Solaris. You'll get it with 2.8.1 and 3.2. >>Using 2.95, 3.0 or 3.1 should work though. > > > With 3.2 you get the same error? Very strange. > Then there might be a chance to convince the > author to actually "fix" the code ... > Yeah it is, I removed 3.2.2 and installed 2.95.3 then it built. Haven't tried 3.3.2 yet. It may work. 3.2.2 on OS/2 just won't build a working X app. I've had real good luck with 3.2.1 though. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:24:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building Blackbox On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 12:01:44PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > Hi, > > John Poltorak schrieb: > > > Would it be possible to get by with just some additional > > headers? > > No way, those errors like: > > Timer.hh:93: previous non-function declaration `template class > _Sequence, class _Compare> class _timer_queue<_Tp,_Sequence,_Compare>' > > Timer.hh:97: conflicts with function declaration `int > _timer_queue()' > > Timer.hh:97: base initializers not allowed for non-member functions > > definitely look like they are saying "sorry, > but my template support is not good enough to > understand that code, please upgrade to a more > ISO-c++ conforming compiler". Changing the > code to cope with the restricitions of > gcc-2.8.x _might_ be possible, but it sure > much more work than just adding yet another > compiler. Is adding a new compiler the only option? It sounds that this in itself opens up a new can of worms because the latest compilers seem to be unable to build Blackbox. The upgrade path seems extremely confusing to me and I don't really want to include four or five different versions of gcc in a standard build framework. It looks as though c++ is the problem in this case. Is it possible to simply replace that part of gcc? Apologies if this is a totally dumb question... > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:28:18 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building Blackbox On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:59:19AM +0100, Andreas Buening wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > > That is a pain. I've standardised on 2.8.1. Adding different versions > > of gcc would make things too complicated at this point... > > > > Would it be possible to get by with just some additional headers? If so > > maybe they could be incorporated into Posix/2... > > It would help if the compiler could be separated from the libc IMHO, i.e., > if emx could be used with gcc 3.x and Innotek's libc with gcc 2.x to > some extent. AFAIK there is a -Zcrtdll= flag for exactly > this purpose. Adding a new header or a new release of the libc wouldn't > require a complete download of a new gcc. > > And, for the vast majority of C applications gcc 2.x will still be > sufficient for a looong time. C++ is a different issue. Given that the issue here is building Blackbox and it's failure appears to be due to missing features in c++, what would you suggest as a way of resolving the matter? > > Bye, > Andreas -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:56:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Installation behind proxy On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 09:52:48AM +0100, Christoph Kloeters wrote: > Hi John! > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:45:44 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > Hupps, nearly forgot to answer. Sorry for the delay, I have much to do > at the moment. > > >Can you post a URL in case someone has a similar problem? > > Hm, lets see, if I am able to find it again. > The rsync man-page: > http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync.html > Search for "RSYNC_PROXY". > > >If you are behind a firewall you may need to adjust one of the programs by > >adding an extra parameter to WGET. It's not something I have not had to do > >myself and don't recall which parameter. > > I configured WGET to work for awget some time ago, so the correct > parameters in config.sys (SET ftp_proxy, SET http_proxy) and the file > (.wgetrc I think?) were set up correctly. I just have to copy the > .wgetrc to the new home-dir of ux2. Can you suggest which command line parameter are required? The best way of handling this would be to incorporate additional paramaters in WGET within BUILD.SH after setting the appropriate variablesn in UX2_LOCAL.CMD. > Best regards, > Christoph -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:00:12 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Building Blackbox On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:45:37 +0100 (CET), Franz Bakan wrote: >>I usually just kill emxload > >No need to be so brute > >emxload -q > >does the job Good to know, thanks Dave _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:00:56 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Building Blackbox On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 08:15:34 -0500, T.Sikora wrote: >Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >>>Same error as Solaris. You'll get it with 2.8.1 and 3.2. >>>Using 2.95, 3.0 or 3.1 should work though. >> >> >> With 3.2 you get the same error? Very strange. >> Then there might be a chance to convince the >> author to actually "fix" the code ... >> > >Yeah it is, I removed 3.2.2 and installed 2.95.3 then it built. Haven't >tried 3.3.2 yet. It may work. 3.2.2 on OS/2 just won't build a working X >app. I've had real good luck with 3.2.1 though. Here Blackbox 0.65.0 will build with 2.95.3 Need to remove optimizations to build screen.cc or run out of memory 3.0.3 Lots of warnings, picks up makefile, makefile.in as styles, freezes quite a bit 3.2.1 Builds nicely, freezes very occasionally Blackbox-CVS also builds after working around a size_t problem but seems to die in stdcxxx pretty early. 3.2.2 works much better but is broken when it comes to X, can't get the display with XOpenDisplay(NULL). Uses 100% CPU, I haven't been able to build a OMF debug version. On the Blackbox mailing list there was quite a bit of effort expanded to get CVS to build with even newer GCCs. Dave _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:45:27 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Building Blackbox John Poltorak schrieb: > Is adding a new compiler the only option? Well, _replacing_ the old one by the new one might be a possibility, too... > because the > latest compilers seem to be unable to build Blackbox. Actually, that's more an issue of the two different libc's (EMX and Innotek) not being identical/compatible, if you manage to use gc-3.2.2 in combination with EMX libc, that probably would still give a working blackbox. But upgrading to 3.2.1 should give you the same level of C++ support without the problems of a different libc. > It looks as though c++ is the problem in this case. Is it > possible to > simply replace that part of gcc? I don't think so, no. > Apologies if this is a totally dumb question... It's not. From the theoretical point of view, it might be possible to just replace cc1plus.exe, but it's unlikely that this will give you no problems at all. And everybody you could ask about potential problems is probably going to ask you to get to a supported setup first. Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:01:03 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building Blackbox On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 05:45:27PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > And everybody > you could ask about potential problems is > probably going to ask you to get to a > supported setup first. Kind of reminds me of an operating system that some of us on this list use ;-)... > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:18:18 +0100 (CET) From: "Christoph Kloeters" Subject: Re: Installation behind proxy Hi John! On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:56:33 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> I configured WGET to work for awget some time ago, so the correct >> parameters in config.sys (SET ftp_proxy, SET http_proxy) and the file >> (.wgetrc I think?) were set up correctly. I just have to copy the >> .wgetrc to the new home-dir of ux2. > >Can you suggest which command line parameter are required? If .wgetrc is set up correctly: no one. My .wgetrc looks like: passive_ftp = on http_proxy = http://proxy.uni-erlangen.de:80 ftp_proxy = http://proxy.uni-erlangen.de:80 Christoph _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:46:33 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Installation behind proxy On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 07:18:18PM +0100, Christoph Kloeters wrote: > Hi John! > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:56:33 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > >> I configured WGET to work for awget some time ago, so the correct > >> parameters in config.sys (SET ftp_proxy, SET http_proxy) and the file > >> (.wgetrc I think?) were set up correctly. I just have to copy the > >> .wgetrc to the new home-dir of ux2. > > > >Can you suggest which command line parameter are required? > > If .wgetrc is set up correctly: no one. > My .wgetrc looks like: > > passive_ftp = on > http_proxy = http://proxy.uni-erlangen.de:80 > ftp_proxy = http://proxy.uni-erlangen.de:80 Can all this be specified on the command line rather than in .wgetrc? > Christoph -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:43:25 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Installation behind proxy Hi, > > passive_ftp = on > > http_proxy = http://proxy.uni-erlangen.de:80 > > ftp_proxy = http://proxy.uni-erlangen.de:80 > > Can all this be specified on the command line rather than in .wgetrc? Well, you can use 'wget --passive-ftp', but apparently proxy variables need to be either set in .wgetrc or in the environment. So 'SET http_proxy=http://proxy...:80 && SET ftp_proxy=http://proxy...:80 && wget --passive-ftp ...' would do. Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs