Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 00:07:29 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 321 ************************************************** Sunday 09 May 2004 Number 321 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Two build branches : Lyn St George" 2 GNU Shell Utils v2.0 : John Poltorak 3 Re: Two build branches : Sebastian Wittmeier" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 16:04:36 +0100 (BST) From: "Lyn St George" Subject: Re: Two build branches On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:14:28 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:27:06PM +0100, Lyn St George wrote: > >> >> Some questions: >> 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. Agreed. According to their website that package is not needed if you link statically, ie with -lgcc. I always did this with gcc2.95, and that avoids the need for the gcc23328721234123.dll. However they also include a 'libc05.dll' in that package. I need to resurface on the UnixOS/2 list and ask about gcc in general and how to install and use it. Apparently it no longer needs the EMX runtime, but it says nothing about the EMX dev packages. Nor does it explain why there are two gcc packages, only one with gcc.exe but both with similar (but not identical) versions of emx and other files. >> 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. RPMs are at the mercy of Redhat, who mangle and break the package in ways that the creator never intended. And the rpm database is only aware of packages installed by rpm, so if you need to install an original tarball instead of a broken rpm then the rpm dog will not know about this next you install an rpm, and even if you force the install it won't find the tarball installation because it was put in the proper place as defined by the package creator. And so it goes on - I refuse to use it. >> 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. Webmin is one package I will add to the list very soon, along with a module to handle various pieces of the installation. > > >-- >John Lyn _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 19:58:54 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: GNU Shell Utils v2.0 I've attempted to build Mr SAWATAISHI's port of the GNU Shell Utils v2.0 using his OS2UNIX utility through UX2BS. I have it working partially and would like anyone familiar with this utility to see i they can get it working fully. If you do a ux2_refresh you should be able to run 'build shellutils' and maybe you can see where I've gone wrong. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 17:14:20 +0200 (CEST) From: "Sebastian Wittmeier" Subject: Re: Two build branches On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:04:36 +0100 (BST), Lyn St George wrote: >Agreed. According to their website that package is not needed >if you link statically, ie with -lgcc. I always did this with gcc2.95, and >that avoids the need for the gcc23328721234123.dll. However they >also include a 'libc05.dll' in that package. I need to resurface on the >UnixOS/2 list and ask about gcc in general and how to install and use >it. Apparently it no longer needs the EMX runtime, but it says nothing >about the EMX dev packages. Nor does it explain why there are two >gcc packages, only one with gcc.exe but both with similar (but not >identical) versions of emx and other files. I have installed the Innotek gcc and it was quite straightforward. It comes with the complete toolset and include/lib files. And it is easy to install it parallel to your existing emx/uxbs/... development environment. Innotek gcc is based on the emx runtime with some changes, look into the gcc-3.2.2-beta4-src-emx.zip file What makes problems is the different handling of underscores. Sebastian _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs