Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 00:07:29 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 320 ************************************************** Saturday 08 May 2004 Number 320 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: BerkeleyDB : Lyn St George" 2 Two build branches : Lyn St George" 3 Re: Two build branches : John Poltorak 4 Re: Two build branches : Lyn St George" 5 Re: Two build branches : John Poltorak 6 GNU Find : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 19:03:19 +0100 (BST) From: "Lyn St George" Subject: Re: BerkeleyDB On Fri, 7 May 2004 12:16:15 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >Building BerkeleyDB *almost* works out of the box using UX2BS, and should >actually build properly if I could make a slight adjustment to this >patch:- > >ftp://ftp.zolotek.net/os2/patch.db-4.1.25 > >I think it only needs a very slight modification in terms of the location >of the changes to Makefile.in but I just can't figure where they should be >move to... > >I'm sure someone knows exactly where that should be ;-)... Sleepycat have later versions than 4.1.25 now, though for some unfathomable reason they also have 2 patches that need to be applied (why don't they patch it themselves??) I'll get onto this quite soon. >-- >John > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 2 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 19:03:34 +0100 (BST) From: "Lyn St George" Subject: Two build branches Hallo all I've just run Ted's branch of ux2bs again, and this time it worked perfectly. I guess that the previous problem was the lack of emx*.dll's on a new machine just as it was for John's branch. There has been a huge amount of work gone into both branches, and rather than waste any of it I want to merge the two into one updated system. The basic philosophy will be that a package should be built from source whenever possible, and only stuff like EMX should be installed as binary packages. The system will also default to a \ux2 root so as to avoid any possibility of clobbering existing stuff in either \ or \unixos2, with the option of moving most of it to \ after testing so as to make a 'live' system. Some questions: 1. os2libs.zip. This has disappeared, even though it is required. What is it? What does it replace? 2. libunixos2. Again, what is this and what does it replace? 3. gcc. ISTM that the time has come to ditch 2.8.x and move to 3.x. Question is, which 3.x? Innotek seem to release only beta versions, not stable versions. Current beta is 3.2.2 beta4, with libc0.5.1 runtime. 4. How far is the Innotek runtime supposed to replace EMX? Or is it just enough to support the relevant gcc? 5. Innotek have several apps prebuilt, with sources. It is possible to make diffs between these and the original Unix packages. It seems tempting to make the diffs, then use ux2bs to get the original source and patch and build, rather than use other versions on Hobbes or elsewhere. I also intend to build a Webmin module, for optional use when doing later stages of building packages and handling dependencies and user input on build options. This will only be a front-end, and should IMHO remain optional, ie, the system should work without it. Webmin can be made to handle many complex things with grace and ease, and the custom modules I have now save me an enormous amount of grief and time. Cheers Lyn _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 20:09:38 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Two build branches On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 07:03:34PM +0100, Lyn St George wrote: > Hallo all > > I've just run Ted's branch of ux2bs again, and this time it worked perfectly. I > guess that the previous problem was the lack of emx*.dll's on a new machine > just as it was for John's branch. This problem has been corrected now. > There has been a huge amount of work gone into both branches, and rather > than waste any of it I want to merge the two into one updated system. > > The basic philosophy will be that a package should be built from source > whenever possible, and only stuff like EMX should be installed as binary > packages. My aim is to start with a set of 'baseline' tools and as part of the initial install to replace them with self-built versions, ie so that \unixos2\bin can disappear as quickly as possible. > The system will also default to a \ux2 root so as to avoid any > possibility of clobbering existing stuff in either \ or \unixos2, with the option > of moving most of it to \ after testing so as to make a 'live' system. > > Some questions: > > 1. os2libs.zip. This has disappeared, even though it is required. What > is it? What does it replace? The intention was to include common DLLs in this package - two of the most common identified being regex.dll and intl.dll. I got fed up of needing half a dozen different intl.dlls for various packages. With UX2BS, those two DLLs get built as part of the initial install. > 2. libunixos2. Again, what is this and what does it replace? I think it is one of the attempts to provide essential features missed out by EM in EMX. The whole area of additional header/libs/DLLs is very fuzzy and there is probably quite a bit of overlap between libunixos2, Posix/2 and Innotek's libc. The whole thing needs rationalising, but time and expertise are constraints on this happening in the near future. > 3. gcc. ISTM that the time has come to ditch 2.8.x and move to 3.x. Question > is, which 3.x? Innotek seem to release only beta versions, not stable versions. > Current beta is 3.2.2 beta4, with libc0.5.1 runtime. I would prefer to see gcc and libc as seperate issues. I would also like to see libc as one of the libs buildable by UX2BS. Also the replacement of gcc 2.8.1 should be done by building a newer version from source. > 4. How far is the Innotek runtime supposed to replace EMX? Or is it just > enough to support the relevant gcc? The source for libc is publicly available. My preference would be to have the future direction of libc driven by the requirements of the OS/2 developer community. Hopefully that will be consistant with the needs of Innotek. > 5. Innotek have several apps prebuilt, with sources. It is possible to make > diffs between these and the original Unix packages. It seems tempting to > make the diffs, then use ux2bs to get the original source and patch and build, > rather than use other versions on Hobbes or elsewhere. diffs have been promised in future versions, although now there are only few apps where UX2BS is lagging behind. > I also intend to build a Webmin module, for optional use when doing later > stages of building packages and handling dependencies and user input > on build options. This will only be a front-end, and should IMHO remain > optional, ie, the system should work without it. Webmin can be made to > handle many complex things with grace and ease, and the custom > modules I have now save me an enormous amount of grief and time. Webmin is another app I would like to see included in UX2BS at some point. I've used it on Linux and it has greatly simplified a lot of work, and many of the apps it configures and manages are available on OS/2 so good use could be made of it. > Cheers > Lyn -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 21:27:06 +0100 (BST) From: "Lyn St George" Subject: Re: Two build branches On Fri, 7 May 2004 20:09:38 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 07:03:34PM +0100, Lyn St George wrote: >> Hallo all >> >> I've just run Ted's branch of ux2bs again, and this time it worked perfectly. I >> guess that the previous problem was the lack of emx*.dll's on a new machine >> just as it was for John's branch. > >This problem has been corrected now. > >> There has been a huge amount of work gone into both branches, and rather >> than waste any of it I want to merge the two into one updated system. >> >> The basic philosophy will be that a package should be built from source >> whenever possible, and only stuff like EMX should be installed as binary >> packages. > >My aim is to start with a set of 'baseline' tools and as part of the >initial install to replace them with self-built versions, ie so that >\unixos2\bin can disappear as quickly as possible. Agreed >> The system will also default to a \ux2 root so as to avoid any >> possibility of clobbering existing stuff in either \ or \unixos2, with the option >> of moving most of it to \ after testing so as to make a 'live' system. >> >> Some questions: >> >> 1. os2libs.zip. This has disappeared, even though it is required. What >> is it? What does it replace? > >The intention was to include common DLLs in this package - two of the most >common identified being regex.dll and intl.dll. I got fed up of needing >half a dozen different intl.dlls for various packages. With UX2BS, those >two DLLs get built as part of the initial install. OK, Is there agreement on what constitutes the "right" version of these two dlls? Presumably the ones you build now ... >> 2. libunixos2. Again, what is this and what does it replace? > >I think it is one of the attempts to provide essential features missed out >by EM in EMX. The whole area of additional header/libs/DLLs is very fuzzy >and there is probably quite a bit of overlap between libunixos2, Posix/2 and >Innotek's libc. The whole thing needs rationalising, but time and >expertise are constraints on this happening in the near future. Ahhh .... Innotek's libc is being actively worked on, and they have commercial imperatives driving their development, so I'll take this as the benchmark. >> 3. gcc. ISTM that the time has come to ditch 2.8.x and move to 3.x. Question >> is, which 3.x? Innotek seem to release only beta versions, not stable versions. >> Current beta is 3.2.2 beta4, with libc0.5.1 runtime. > >I would prefer to see gcc and libc as seperate issues. I would also like >to see libc as one of the libs buildable by UX2BS. > >Also the replacement of gcc 2.8.1 should be done by building a newer >version from source. Agreed in principle. My first beta of this build will use their binary gcc for convenience (which needs their libc). Later this should be revisited. >> 4. How far is the Innotek runtime supposed to replace EMX? Or is it just >> enough to support the relevant gcc? > >The source for libc is publicly available. My preference would be to have >the future direction of libc driven by the requirements of the OS/2 >developer community. Hopefully that will be consistant with the needs of >Innotek. > > >> 5. Innotek have several apps prebuilt, with sources. It is possible to make >> diffs between these and the original Unix packages. It seems tempting to >> make the diffs, then use ux2bs to get the original source and patch and build, >> rather than use other versions on Hobbes or elsewhere. > >diffs have been promised in future versions, although now there are only >few apps where UX2BS is lagging behind. I'll make diffs for the apps they have, and then see about the others. >> I also intend to build a Webmin module, for optional use when doing later >> stages of building packages and handling dependencies and user input >> on build options. This will only be a front-end, and should IMHO remain >> optional, ie, the system should work without it. Webmin can be made to >> handle many complex things with grace and ease, and the custom >> modules I have now save me an enormous amount of grief and time. > >Webmin is another app I would like to see included in UX2BS at some point. > >I've used it on Linux and it has greatly simplified a lot of work, and >many of the apps it configures and manages are available on OS/2 so good >use could be made of it. I use Webmin on OS/2 (or did on that dead hard disk ..) and overall it's the best thing since sliced bread. I used to be a fan of the CLI and looked down my nose at these GUI widgets - until I discovered just how useful they can be. I also use it on Linux with custom modules for various things connected with hosting. In fact, one reason for going to work on Ux2bs right now, rather than some time in the future, is that I have decided to build a similar system on Linux. I have grown to absolutely loathe and depise that Redhat Package Mangler dog and now use only tarballs. However, there really needs to be some way of handling dependencies and other issues. I've always been impressed with the CPAN install system, which has a lot of the features required, but Ux2bs is in fact a very close parallel of what I have in mind. Combined with a Webmin module to handle user input and general management, this system will work on both OS/2 and Linux. I suppose it's fair to say that I also have commercial imperatives driving me with Ux2bs at the moment. >> Cheers >> Lyn > > >-- >John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 12:14:28 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Two build branches On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:27:06PM +0100, Lyn St George wrote: > >> Some questions: > >> > >> 1. os2libs.zip. This has disappeared, even though it is required. What > >> is it? What does it replace? > > > >The intention was to include common DLLs in this package - two of the most > >common identified being regex.dll and intl.dll. I got fed up of needing > >half a dozen different intl.dlls for various packages. With UX2BS, those > >two DLLs get built as part of the initial install. > > OK, Is there agreement on what constitutes the "right" version of > these two dlls? Presumably the ones you build now ... The DLLs in question are REGEX.DLL and INTL.DLL. Regex is fairly straightforward, but intl is a PITA. The version of intl I'm using is from GETTEXT 0.10.39, because I can't get a newer one working correctly. > Ahhh .... Innotek's libc is being actively worked on, and they have > commercial imperatives driving their development, so I'll take this > as the benchmark. Innotek's libc is developed in accordance with what is required for development of their own software, which is fine at the moment, but if they suddenly withdraw their OS/2 support, we need to ensure that libc can be maintained independently. > I use Webmin on OS/2 (or did on that dead hard disk ..) and overall > it's the best thing since sliced bread. I used to be a fan of the CLI and > looked down my nose at these GUI widgets - until I discovered just > how useful they can be. I also use it on Linux with custom modules for > various things connected with hosting. In fact, one reason for going to > work on Ux2bs right now, rather than some time in the future, is that I > have decided to build a similar system on Linux. I have grown to > absolutely loathe and depise that Redhat Package Mangler dog and > now use only tarballs. One thing I would really like to see is the possibility of installing software on OS/2 via something like Webmin. I've used it to install some RPMs and not hade the problems you mentioned. I found it very impressive that you could so much, so easily. > However, there really needs to be some > way of handling dependencies and other issues. Dependencies are important, but the primary focus should be to be able to build apps correctly and easily. Once a wide range of apps can be built, then dependencies and software management can be tackled. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 13:29:54 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: GNU Find GNU Find v4.1 can now be built with UX2BS. It's a bit of a kludge at the moment, and it won't install, but it does build correctly. What I would like to change is get it to build using the external regex lib rather than the one included, so if anyone can suggest what changes are required to the Makefiles, I'd appreciate it. You will need to run ux2_refresh to be able to try it, and you will need to copy FIND.DLL manually to the libpath to be able to use FIND.EXE or any of the included binaries such as XARGS. It would be nice to get this to build using the standard autconf/configure way, but I can't figure out what needs doing. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs