Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:07:07 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 294 ************************************************** Friday 26 March 2004 Number 294 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: retrieval of symlinks fails : J. Ulbts" 2 Building JPEG : John Poltorak 3 Re: Building JPEG : Alex Samorukov 4 Re: Building JPEG : John Poltorak 5 make 3.79.1, case insensitivity of filenames : Sebastian Wittmeier" 6 Re: make 3.79.1, case insensitivity of filenames : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 7 Re: make 3.79.1, case insensitivity of filenames : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:18:26 +0100 (CET) From: "J. Ulbts" Subject: Re: retrieval of symlinks fails Hi! On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:13:00 +0100 (CET), Sebastian Wittmeier wrote: >On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:00:28 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: [WGET] >both 1.8.1 and 1.9 >and only with the above site, when I use -N without --retr-symlinks >I have ISDN with eCSCoNet without firewall eCSCoNet is ISDNPM 3.x as OEM version (don't know if there are restrictions) and then you have more or less the same config I have. If you use ISDNPM and eCSCoNet you've got a NAT firewall. Outgoing connections allowed on more or less all ports (only the WinXY Network shared are blocked) and nearly all incomming connections are blocked (80, 21 should be open - also see FTPLOOSEPORT). Kind Regards, Juergen Ulbts (Germany) _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:49:29 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Building JPEG Has anyone attempted to build JPEG using UX2BS? In principle it should be fairly easy, but I haven't managed to do it yet. I'm not sure of which *FLAGS should be used. My preference would be to create dynamic libraries but I don't know how that would be specified. Any tips would be appreciated. I would like to get as many graphics apps built as I can - besides JPEG, there is PNG, TIFF, NETPBM which all have OS/2 ports available so it must be possible to build them without too much bother. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:56:25 +0200 From: Alex Samorukov Subject: Re: Building JPEG John Poltorak wrote: >Has anyone attempted to build JPEG using UX2BS? > >In principle it should be fairly easy, but I haven't managed to do it yet. >I'm not sure of which *FLAGS should be used. My preference would be to >create dynamic libraries but I don't know how that would be specified. > > I built it. I can send you my makefiles if you want. BTW, i think that we need to create both static and dinamyc builds. E.g. libjpeg.lib and libjpeg_s.lib (and .a versions too). >Any tips would be appreciated. > >I would like to get as many graphics apps built as I can - besides JPEG, >there is PNG, TIFF, NETPBM which all have OS/2 ports available so it must >be possible to build them without too much bother. > > Yes. If you will have questions - feel free to ask. BTW, i ported to OS/2 YSM ICQ (ysmv7.sf.net) and Null Webmail. If you want - you can include them to ux2bs. But i used latest innotek GCC for this work. As for me libc runtime work much better then EMX, but is more limited in functions (e.g. fork(), alarm() and many other functions are not implemented). But in multi thread apps innotek LIBC work much better then EMX (btw imho many pthreads problems are based on EXM libc thread problems). E.g. i had errors like "too many muxwait" before i switched to latest GCC (in code which desnt have any muxwait ;)) _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:27:06 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Building JPEG On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:56:25AM +0200, Alex Samorukov wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > >Has anyone attempted to build JPEG using UX2BS? > > > >In principle it should be fairly easy, but I haven't managed to do it yet. > >I'm not sure of which *FLAGS should be used. My preference would be to > >create dynamic libraries but I don't know how that would be specified. > > > > > I built it. I can send you my makefiles if you want. Are they any different to H C Chu's makefiles? Ideally, I would like to try and patch makefile.cfg and get configure to create a Makefile suitable for the local environment. Static Makefiles usually need some adjustments because they end up being site specific. > BTW, i think that > we need to create both static and dinamyc builds. E.g. libjpeg.lib and > libjpeg_s.lib (and .a versions too). Can you explain why all these versions are required and what they would be used by? I get confused with all these libs. Am I correct in thinking that you think there should be four in addition to a JPEG.DLL ? > >Any tips would be appreciated. > > > >I would like to get as many graphics apps built as I can - besides JPEG, > >there is PNG, TIFF, NETPBM which all have OS/2 ports available so it must > >be possible to build them without too much bother. > > > > > Yes. If you will have questions - feel free to ask. OK, how do I get PNG built? > BTW, i ported to > OS/2 YSM ICQ (ysmv7.sf.net) and Null Webmail. If you want - you can > include them to ux2bs. But i used latest innotek GCC for this work. As > for me libc runtime work much better then EMX, but is more limited in > functions (e.g. fork(), alarm() and many other functions are not > implemented). But in multi thread apps innotek LIBC work much better > then EMX (btw imho many pthreads problems are based on EXM libc thread > problems). E.g. i had errors like "too many muxwait" before i switched > to latest GCC (in code which desnt have any muxwait ;)) It's a problem at the moment. I'd like to go from gcc 2.8.1 to 3.2.2 or later but I think there are too many missing functions at the moment. When fork() is implemented might be a better time to migrate. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:22:25 +0100 (CET) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier" Subject: make 3.79.1, case insensitivity of filenames Hi, I suggest adding #define HAVE_CASE_INSENSITIVE_FS to config.h which is created by configure. I don't know how to incorporate that change into the automake-mechanism (if possible at all). Sebastian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:11:30 +0100 (CET) From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: make 3.79.1, case insensitivity of filenames Sebastian Wittmeier schrieb: > Hi, > I suggest adding > #define HAVE_CASE_INSENSITIVE_FS > to config.h which is created by configure. > I don't know how to incorporate that change into the > automake-mechanism > (if possible at all). Yes and no... While I agree that case _in_sensitivity would be nice for deciding which file to compile (so make doesn't break if there's only something.c while it's searching for Something.c), case sensitivity is vastly preferable in deciding which rule to use for compiling, e.g. if there are rules for both %.c (c-code) and %.C (c++-code) or %.s and %.S (one being plain assembler, the other requiring the C preprocessor to be run first or something similar). One of the make-3.75 versions has this implemented "properly" but all later versions seem to be broken (at least w.r.t. my expectations). Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:34:20 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: make 3.79.1, case insensitivity of filenames On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:22:25AM +0100, Sebastian Wittmeier wrote: > Hi, > I suggest adding > #define HAVE_CASE_INSENSITIVE_FS > to config.h which is created by configure. > I don't know how to incorporate that change into the automake-mechanism > (if possible at all). I would have expected that config.h.in is the input file for config.h, but I don't see any mention of CASE_INSENSITIVE in this file. Are you sure it has any effect? config.h is generated by autoheader but I don't know what you would need to add to config.h.in to get such a line included. > Sebastian -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs