Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:07:33 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 327 ************************************************** Wednesday 19 May 2004 Number 327 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 2 Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 3 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 4 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 5 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 6 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 7 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 8 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 9 Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 10 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 11 Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 12 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 13 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 14 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Cheng-Yang_Tan 15 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Andreas Buening 1 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Andreas Buening 16 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Rodney Pont" 17 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 18 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 19 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 20 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Anton Monroe 21 Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Anton Monroe 22 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 23 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 24 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 25 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Dave Yeo" 2 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 3 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Dave Yeo" 26 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Dave Yeo" 4 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 5 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Dave Yeo" 27 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 6 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 28 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 7 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 29 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 30 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 8 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 31 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 32 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 33 bootAble.UX2 : John Poltorak 61 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 9 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:21:15 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Adrian Gschwend wrote: > On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:29:57 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>We really need 2 camps. One doing the UX2BS where all this neat stuff is >>being developed and the UX2 camp where the distribution is maintained >>and built. I would think John would be the overseer and liason between > > > so basical ux2bs would be the "unstable" branch and ux2 the stable, binary > only branch? I would support that idea. Like this die-hard developers can use > ux2bs and the normal user will take the tested binary releases. Sort of. UX2BS has no branch it's just the development area or 'custom shop' for UX2 where the basic infastructure for it is built and the core *manadatory* packages developed. *opt* packages can be either downloaded as a package or built with UX2 via the 'ports tree' with 'build '. This is where the 'port maintainer' comes in. He makes the build scripts and maintains it in the tree. It's submitted to UX2 for the tree after UX2BS tests it, approves it, and builds a package for UX2. > > >>the 2 camps and makes all the final decisions on what should be moved >>over or used in UX2. Or appoint a few officers or core team if you will. >>A democratic system will not work here. Someone has to make the >>decisions or nothing will get done like what was happening. That works >>in the lists but final decisions on whats used *has* to be dictated. I'm >>sure we all want this thing to get out of the garage! > > > ACK. But that needs to be organized. I also agree about packet-maintainers. Well maybe I went a little too far there. > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 11:10:25PM +0200, Michael Zolk wrote: > > >>OK, here's my take on this: >> >>First, let me say that I haven't followed the progress of UX2BS closely >>enough to know all its details or the exact differences between your and >>John's version. > > > The main difference is Ted wants to provide a plug 'n play UnixOS/2 using > UX2BS as a basis for that and bundling in everything which is > currently missing using existing ports. I would also like to see something > along those lines, but would prefer to see everything built from scratch > using a small toolset. Unfortunately this will take a long time and in the > meantime we could provide a pretty featureful UnixOS/2 environment now > using Ted's approach which would allow users to get accustomed to using > this environment and making the most of it. > > >>However, I really like John's approach where he tries to build everything >>from the "upstream" sources and to clearly distinguish between this upstream >>sources and the patches and build scripts needed for UX2BS. Thus we have a >>nice infrastructure in place to build stuff and to maintain the future >>distribution which will hopefully save a lot of work in the long run. > > > Yes, in the long run it will save a lot of work because the idea behind > UX2BS is to be able to rebuild any app in a fully automated fashion. In > fact it should be possible in theory to rebuild a whole UnixOS/2 distro > using a single command. But all this takes time and in the meantime the > remaining OS/2 users are dropping out of the OS/2 community principally > because of lack of apps, inspite of the there being a huge pool of open > source software which should build on OS/2, but currently can't because we > don't have a standard infrastructure in place. > > > >>Therefore I'd prefer UX2BS as a sort of "starting point" for the UnixOS2 >>distribution. A rough roadmap could look like this: >> >>* "freeze" UX2BS, i.e. do not add anything new to it, no new apps in >> build.table, just concentrate on the apps that are currently in UX2BS. >> This way, there will be only a small number of packages in the >> distribution, maybe even some important tools might be missing. However as >> a first step while we still have to figure out how to do things it will >> probably be much easier to concentrate on only a few packages. > > > The problem here is that UX2BS does not work properly with some apps. > There are too many bits missing. Whist the general framework has hardly > changed for 18 months a number of what I would call 'core apps' won't > build yet. > > Before UX2BS can be 'frozen' I would suggest it should be capable of at > least rebuilding the 'baseline' toolset from which it starts along with a > few other apps. In addition I would also like it to incorporate a number > of basic 'building blocks' such as zlib, jpeg, tiff, readline, groff, man, > libtool, iconv among one or two others. > > > >>* test this frozen UX2BS and fix bugs. Issues to look out for are >> - do all apps work correctly with the same set of DLLs >> - handling of line ends: CRLF vs LF >> - hardcoded paths >> - a lot more which I'm too lazy to think of right now >> >>* start packaging the apps built with UX2BS for the UnixOS2 distribution. Of >> course it would be easier if there were a tool to automagically create >> these packages, but even if there isn't we should go on with this. These >> packages then need more testing. >> >>* sometime during this whole process the installer(s) should be finished. >> >>* When everything seems to be reasonably stable, release UnixOS/2 1.0. > > > I think Ted should go ahead and put together UnixOS/2 0.1 now and work out > how we manage to keep incorporating updates in UX2BS into it. Hopefully > once we have a frozen and fully tested UX2BS we can synchronise this with > UnixOS/2 in time for v1.0. Now that you said that, this all comes together now. UX2BS does what I decribed, UX2(Redux) is the (unstable) branch. The final versions are released to Ian and his team for posting on unixos2.com after an RC is approved. This may all take time too but at least it provides a roadmap. And *please* don't fight over that filesystem AGAIN! AAARRRGGHH! John could you look at this: http://os2ports.com/ftp/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/ux2bs.README The /XFREE86 directory will not exist anymore, finally. It's now in /usr with 4.4.0 /proc /dev /boot Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used Is this what you want? What about UNIXROOT? Is there a root folder for the filesystem? I believe it has to be like like the README to work 100% I don't recommend running it till we update it. Possibly a couple of weeks. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:45:37 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:17:07PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. I've never been clear whether you actually got UX2BS built from scratch using ux2_bootstrap... Last time, I recall you having some sort of problems with passive ftp and I don't know if you've tried since. > > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:58:54 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:09:38AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > I'm for that! The 'make buildworld'/'make installworld' from FreeBSD. > Now that is cool! But the basic system still has to be installed. > > But all this takes time and in the meantime the > > remaining OS/2 users are dropping out of the OS/2 community principally > > because of lack of apps, > > That's it exactly. Many have put their hopes in UX2 and it just has not > materialized yet. No it hasn't, but that is largely because sufficient expertise has not been applied. I was hoping for the core apps to buildable a year ago, but some still don't work. The project really does need more people who know their way around building apps with an intimate knowledge of Makefiles and sundry *FLAGS which I simply don't. > Jeff and me were hoping to kick the dust off it and go through it > possibly this weekend. I really think we should download the UX2BS > first, check it out thouroughly, move it somewhere then run the UX2 > script. IT's works now and still works I believe. I need to go through > it and replace all the UX2BS references to just UX2. I suggest we just > use that modified bootstrap for the install till we make a dialog based one. I'm not really clear about whether you want to create a build system or an installation system. Combining the two sounds tricky. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:16:09 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:43:55AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > And *please* don't fight over that filesystem AGAIN! AAARRRGGHH! Not sure what you mean... > John could you look at this: > http://os2ports.com/ftp/pub/unixos2/ux2bs/ux2bs.README > > The /XFREE86 directory will not exist anymore, finally. It's now in /usr > with 4.4.0 Xprog440.zip is in the baseline toolset, although I would like to change a number of things around otherwise we will end up with multiple copies of things like ZLIB. > > /proc > /dev > /boot I don't think anything uses them. > Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot > scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used > Is this what you want? What about UNIXROOT? Is there a root folder for > the filesystem? I believe it has to be like like the README to work 100% Does anything actually use UNIXROOT? THe idea of that was to allow Holger device driver to substitute the appropriate drive letter when one wasn't included. I don't know how far Holger got with his replacement for EMX - LIBEMU, but I've heard no mention of it in over a year, so I don't really expect it to materialise. That's a pity, since it sounded like a neat idea. One other matter that we have never resolved is whether to incorporate a number of useful device drivers and IFSs such as ASPIROUT.SYS or TVFS or parts of Security/2 to enable proper PASSWD management. > I don't recommend running it till we update it. Possibly a couple of weeks. > > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:33:47 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:17:07PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. > > > > I've never been clear whether you actually got UX2BS built from scratch > using ux2_bootstrap... > > > Last time, I recall you having some sort of problems with passive ftp and > I don't know if you've tried since. Yeah I had it working. > > >>-- >>T.Sikora >>tsikora at ntplx dot net > > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:37:40 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > >> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:17:07PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >> >>> I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. >> >> >> >> >> I've never been clear whether you actually got UX2BS built from >> scratch using ux2_bootstrap... >> >> >> Last time, I recall you having some sort of problems with passive ftp >> and I don't know if you've tried since. > > > Yeah I had it working. > >> The new job was sucking up all my time it finally leveled off. I got some time now finally. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:50:25 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:09:38AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >>John Poltorak wrote: > > >>I'm for that! The 'make buildworld'/'make installworld' from FreeBSD. >>Now that is cool! But the basic system still has to be installed. >> >>But all this takes time and in the meantime the >> >>>remaining OS/2 users are dropping out of the OS/2 community principally >>>because of lack of apps, >> >>That's it exactly. Many have put their hopes in UX2 and it just has not >>materialized yet. > > > No it hasn't, but that is largely because sufficient expertise has not > been applied. I was hoping for the core apps to buildable a year ago, but > some still don't work. The project really does need more people who know > their way around building apps with an intimate knowledge of Makefiles > and sundry *FLAGS which I simply don't. > > >>Jeff and me were hoping to kick the dust off it and go through it >>possibly this weekend. I really think we should download the UX2BS >>first, check it out thouroughly, move it somewhere then run the UX2 >>script. IT's works now and still works I believe. I need to go through >>it and replace all the UX2BS references to just UX2. I suggest we just >>use that modified bootstrap for the install till we make a dialog based one. > > > I'm not really clear about whether you want to create a build system or an > installation system. Combining the two sounds tricky. > No, no. Were going to build a dialog install similar to Slackware and the BSD'es?. Uses cdrom or ftp for install. The key components for the build environment from the build system will be used only. EMX, gcc, etc. Your 'bare minumum', the rest are packages. The other part is the 'ports tree' (/ports)which is already part of UX2, scripts and all. The only tricky part is the UX2BS development system minus the ports built. Do we make packages from it for UX2. I don't think we should build them on install. After the install users can always go in /ports and do a 'build '. I guess the only way is go ahead and do it and see. The UX2BS downloads the bare minumun then starts building the ports via the 'ports tree' mechanism. We need to make zips of that bare minumum for UX2. THen the rest of UX2 is installed by packages. You can just grab the *manadatory* or *required* pqackages on install and either install any additional ports via packages or use the 'ports tree' to build them on the fly. It all seems pretty simple to me. > >>-- >>T.Sikora >>tsikora at ntplx dot net > > > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:41:20 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:21:15AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > This is where the 'port maintainer' comes in. He makes the build scripts > and maintains it in the tree. It's submitted to UX2 for the tree after > UX2BS tests it, approves it, and builds a package for UX2. What I want to see is the removal of the need for maintainers, and I certainly want to get away from hand crafted build scripts. I would just like the source code to come with all the required OS/2 functionality in the distributed version and build it using a the standard build framework so that it works as easily as it does on Unix, otherwise the whole point of UX2BS is a waste of time. In any case I don't think you'll find people queueing up to maintain a couple of hundred apps. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 10 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:55:54 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > >> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:09:38AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >>> John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >> >> No it hasn't, but that is largely because sufficient expertise has not >> been applied. I was hoping for the core apps to buildable a year ago, >> but some still don't work. The project really does need more people >> who know their way around building apps with an intimate knowledge of >> Makefiles and sundry *FLAGS which I simply don't. >> >>> Jeff and me were hoping to kick the dust off it and go through it >>> possibly this weekend. I really think we should download the UX2BS >>> first, check it out thouroughly, move it somewhere then run the UX2 >>> script. IT's works now and still works I believe. I need to go >>> through it and replace all the UX2BS references to just UX2. I >>> suggest we just use that modified bootstrap for the install till we >>> make a dialog based one. >> >> >> >> I'm not really clear about whether you want to create a build system >> or an installation system. Combining the two sounds tricky. > > > No, no. Were going to build a dialog install similar to Slackware and > the BSD'es?. Uses cdrom or ftp for install. The key components for the > build environment from the build system will be used only. EMX, gcc, > etc. Your 'bare minumum', the rest are packages. The other part is the > 'ports tree' (/ports)which is already part of UX2, scripts and all. The > only tricky part is the UX2BS development system minus the ports built. > Do we make packages from it for UX2. I don't think we should build them > on install. After the install users can always go in /ports and do a > 'build '. I guess the only way is go ahead and do it and see. > > > The UX2BS downloads the bare minumun then starts building the ports via > the 'ports tree' mechanism. We need to make zips of that bare minumum > for UX2. THen the rest of UX2 is installed by packages. You can just > grab the *manadatory* or *required* pqackages on install and either > install any additional ports via packages or use the 'ports tree' to > build them on the fly. It all seems pretty simple to me. > The key component here again is a working 'makepkg' tool. With that 95% of all our headaches are solved. The bare minumum from the UX2BS before it starts building anything could be a few zips then the rest packages. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 11 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:59:28 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:21:15AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>This is where the 'port maintainer' comes in. He makes the build scripts >>and maintains it in the tree. It's submitted to UX2 for the tree after >>UX2BS tests it, approves it, and builds a package for UX2. > > > What I want to see is the removal of the need for maintainers, and I > certainly want to get away from hand crafted build scripts. I would just > like the source code to come with all the required OS/2 functionality in > the distributed version and build it using a the standard build framework > so that it works as easily as it does on Unix, otherwise the whole point > of UX2BS is a waste of time. > > In any case I don't think you'll find people queueing up to maintain a > couple of hundred apps. > Well I was hoping volunteers would beat our doors down. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 12 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:57:41 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > >> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:09:38AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >>> John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >> >>> I'm for that! The 'make buildworld'/'make installworld' from FreeBSD. >>> Now that is cool! But the basic system still has to be installed. >>> A 'build all' should be pretty simple once we have something to build. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 13 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:15:17 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> John Poltorak wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:09:38AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: I'm pretty sure we will get more support for this once it's actually working and people could see what this is all about. Everything is pretty disjointed right now. I guess UX2BS was clouded in mystery and appered as some strange magical thing that very few people understood. I had so many people ask me even part of this.. "What is it I don't understand it". "After Perl what do I do"? Does everyone agree? UX2BS -- Core Developers UX2(redux) -- (unstable)branch of UX2 starting at v 0.1 When it reaches RC after .9 it's submitted to unixos2.com for 'public consumption' when everyone deems it's ready. Hopfully we can get more people involved this way. THe UX2BS was scaring a lot of people away as being too technical and rudimentary. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 14 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:15:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Cheng-Yang_Tan Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... > > T.Sikora wrote: > > T.Sikora wrote: > > > >> John Poltorak wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 10:09:38AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > I'm pretty sure we will get more support for this once it's actually > working and people could see what this is all about. Everything is > pretty disjointed right now. I guess UX2BS was clouded in mystery and > appered as some strange magical thing that very few people understood. I > had so many people ask me even part of this.. "What is it I don't > understand it". "After Perl what do I do"? > > Does everyone agree? > > UX2BS -- Core Developers > > UX2(redux) -- (unstable)branch of UX2 starting at v 0.1 > > When it reaches RC after .9 it's submitted to unixos2.com for 'public > consumption' when everyone deems it's ready. > > Hopfully we can get more people involved this way. THe UX2BS was scaring > a lot of people away as being too technical and rudimentary. > > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net At some point I would like to port octave (a matlab clone) to OS/2. And so if UX2BS matures sufficiently for me to do this, I'd try my hand at it. Cheng-Yang Tan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 15 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:38:59 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > The key component here again is a working 'makepkg' tool. With that 95% > of all our headaches are solved. The bare minumum from the UX2BS before > it starts building anything could be a few zips then the rest packages. I'd rather say a working makepkg is the remaining 5%. ;-) The 95% goes to tools that - understand the package file format - provide some package management and file tracking - patch installed shell scripts to use the drive letters of the user's system and register .info files and maybe other stuff - provide some reasonable error handling if anything goes wrong The dialog-driven installation is the 50% that is missing to 150%. Just my 0.02 cents. Bye, Andreas _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:39:05 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > Does anything actually use UNIXROOT? THe idea of that was to allow Holger > device driver to substitute the appropriate drive letter when one wasn't > included. At least I used UNIXROOT for make, gawk, and gettext. If I understood correctly, the idea was to use UNIXROOT as the root drive whenever possible. At least for the base tools it's no pricipal problem. I know we had this endless discussion about the cygwin vs. emx philosophy. And, some people still don't like the cygwin approach. Bye, Andreas _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 16 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:59:29 +0100 (BST) From: "Rodney Pont" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >/proc >/dev >/boot > >Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot >scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? Regards - Rodney Pont E-mail by PMMail - listm4 at infohitsystems.ltd.uk really weird out of context words courtesy of PMMail's spellchecker _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 17 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:12:11 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 03:15:17PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > Hopfully we can get more people involved this way. THe UX2BS was scaring > a lot of people away as being too technical and rudimentary. I never heard that. This list was set up to provide support for anyone who had any problems... And there wasn't anything particularly technical about being able to build Perl from source by running a simple command and not having to read tons of docs. I doubt whether many people who have built it using UX2BS would have found it so easy doing it all manually. > > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:28:17 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Rodney Pont wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>/proc >>/dev >>/boot >> >>Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot >>scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used > > > Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? > Yeah it would. That stays. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 19 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:29:47 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:59:29PM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: > >>On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >> >>>/proc >>>/dev >>>/boot >>> >>>Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot >>>scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used >> >>Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? > > > I think EMX already provides one... It might be useful I seem to recall autoconf looking for it on a ports. > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 20 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:44:45 -0500 From: Anton Monroe Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:58:54PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > That's it exactly. Many have put their hopes in UX2 and it just has not > > materialized yet. > > No it hasn't, but that is largely because sufficient expertise has not > been applied. I was hoping for the core apps to buildable a year ago, but > some still don't work. The project really does need more people who know > their way around building apps with an intimate knowledge of Makefiles > and sundry *FLAGS which I simply don't. I'm not a developer and I'm new to this list, so I'm not qualified to express an opinion. That seldom stops me from doing it, though. I learned about UX2/UX2BS by stumbling over the UnixOS2 web site. The difference between UnixOS2 and UX2BS wasn't very clear to me. I know now that UnixOS2 would have probably been more appropriate for someone like me to look at. But the files on unixos2.com hadn't been updated in a long time, and the UX2BS package on os2ports.com looked like the only thing that was intended for an interested outsider to download and try out. I ran into a couple of glitches and barged in here with bug reports and suggestions, only to find out it wasn't the current version that the list was about. I'm not complaining; the point I'm leading up to is that the first exposure most people have with a project like this is a website and a file or files that they can download and try out. If the information on the web page isn't clear or if the package is very complicated to install, most people will pass the project by. That's what I do, and I imagine the experienced developers you want to recruit aren't very different. It seems to me that is why Ted's efforts are important. Regardless of how incomplete the package is, people should be pointed to something they can download and install with relatively little effort. Once they get interested, they will be more willing to rsync the development package from John's server, join the mailing list, and contribute to the project. In other words, UX2 needs UX2BS, but UX2BS also needs UX2. wordily, Anton _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 21 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:42:30 -0500 From: Anton Monroe Subject: Re: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 07:41:20PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > I would just like the source code to come with all the required OS/2 > functionality in the distributed version and build it using a the > standard build framework so that it works as easily as it does on Unix, > otherwise the whole point of UX2BS is a waste of time. You're talking like a purist again. If UX2BS can build a core system and half of all the other apps out there so experienced developers can concentrate on the other half, or if it lets someone build things that they couldn't under EMX, it will not have been a waste of your time. At the very least it will give developers trying to write portable apps a standardized OS/2 environment to write for. Sounds very worthwhile to me. I agree with your goal, of course; I'm just quibbling with the last few words of what you wrote. Anton _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 22 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:36 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Anton Monroe wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:58:54PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > >>>That's it exactly. Many have put their hopes in UX2 and it just has not >>>materialized yet. >> >>No it hasn't, but that is largely because sufficient expertise has not >>been applied. I was hoping for the core apps to buildable a year ago, but >>some still don't work. The project really does need more people who know >>their way around building apps with an intimate knowledge of Makefiles >>and sundry *FLAGS which I simply don't. > > > I'm not a developer and I'm new to this list, so I'm not qualified to > express an opinion. That seldom stops me from doing it, though. > > I learned about UX2/UX2BS by stumbling over the UnixOS2 web site. The > difference between UnixOS2 and UX2BS wasn't very clear to me. I know > now that UnixOS2 would have probably been more appropriate for someone > like me to look at. But the files on unixos2.com hadn't been updated in > a long time, and the UX2BS package on os2ports.com looked like the only > thing that was intended for an interested outsider to download and try > out. I ran into a couple of glitches and barged in here with bug > reports and suggestions, only to find out it wasn't the current version > that the list was about. > > I'm not complaining; the point I'm leading up to is that the first > exposure most people have with a project like this is a website and a > file or files that they can download and try out. If the information on > the web page isn't clear or if the package is very complicated to > install, most people will pass the project by. That's what I do, and I > imagine the experienced developers you want to recruit aren't very > different. > > It seems to me that is why Ted's efforts are important. Regardless of > how incomplete the package is, people should be pointed to something > they can download and install with relatively little effort. Once they > get interested, they will be more willing to rsync the development > package from John's server, join the mailing list, and contribute to the > project. In other words, UX2 needs UX2BS, but UX2BS also needs UX2. > > wordily, Maybe Redux should be tagged UX2(current) instead of (unstable) It may scare people away. It may well be stable but include a warning that it may not be since it's the current development model leading up to the next release. The release version on unixos2.com would be UX2(stable). Their all BSD conventions. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 23 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:42:47 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > Anton Monroe wrote: > >> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:58:54PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> >>>> That's it exactly. Many have put their hopes in UX2 and it just has >>>> not materialized yet. >>> >>> >>> No it hasn't, but that is largely because sufficient expertise has >>> not been applied. I was hoping for the core apps to buildable a year >>> ago, but some still don't work. The project really does need more >>> people who know their way around building apps with an intimate >>> knowledge of Makefiles and sundry *FLAGS which I simply don't. >> >> >> >> I'm not a developer and I'm new to this list, so I'm not qualified to >> express an opinion. That seldom stops me from doing it, though. >> >> I learned about UX2/UX2BS by stumbling over the UnixOS2 web site. The >> difference between UnixOS2 and UX2BS wasn't very clear to me. I know >> now that UnixOS2 would have probably been more appropriate for someone >> like me to look at. But the files on unixos2.com hadn't been updated in >> a long time, and the UX2BS package on os2ports.com looked like the only >> thing that was intended for an interested outsider to download and try >> out. I ran into a couple of glitches and barged in here with bug >> reports and suggestions, only to find out it wasn't the current version >> that the list was about. >> >> I'm not complaining; the point I'm leading up to is that the first >> exposure most people have with a project like this is a website and a >> file or files that they can download and try out. If the information on >> the web page isn't clear or if the package is very complicated to >> install, most people will pass the project by. That's what I do, and I >> imagine the experienced developers you want to recruit aren't very >> different. >> >> It seems to me that is why Ted's efforts are important. Regardless of >> how incomplete the package is, people should be pointed to something >> they can download and install with relatively little effort. Once they >> get interested, they will be more willing to rsync the development >> package from John's server, join the mailing list, and contribute to the >> project. In other words, UX2 needs UX2BS, but UX2BS also needs UX2. >> >> wordily, > > > Maybe Redux should be tagged UX2(current) instead of (unstable) It may > scare people away. It may well be stable but include a warning that it > may not be since it's the current development model leading up to the > next release. The release version on unixos2.com would be UX2(stable). > Their all BSD conventions. > This weekend I'll make a ux2-current mailing list and put the ux2bs subscribers on that. If you don't want to be on it just unsubscribe or disregard the verification email. This way nobody will be left out. I'll try to rename everything this weekend so we can download that thing and see what needs to be trimmed and replaced. You can get it now but I would wait till I announce it so everyone starts with the same version. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 24 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:41:55 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... T.Sikora wrote: > T.Sikora wrote: > >> Anton Monroe wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:58:54PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >>> >>>>> That's it exactly. Many have put their hopes in UX2 and it just has >>>>> not materialized yet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No it hasn't, but that is largely because sufficient expertise has >>>> not been applied. I was hoping for the core apps to buildable a year >>>> ago, but some still don't work. The project really does need more >>>> people who know their way around building apps with an intimate >>>> knowledge of Makefiles and sundry *FLAGS which I simply don't. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not a developer and I'm new to this list, so I'm not qualified to >>> express an opinion. That seldom stops me from doing it, though. >>> >>> I learned about UX2/UX2BS by stumbling over the UnixOS2 web site. The >>> difference between UnixOS2 and UX2BS wasn't very clear to me. I know >>> now that UnixOS2 would have probably been more appropriate for someone >>> like me to look at. But the files on unixos2.com hadn't been updated in >>> a long time, and the UX2BS package on os2ports.com looked like the only >>> thing that was intended for an interested outsider to download and try >>> out. I ran into a couple of glitches and barged in here with bug >>> reports and suggestions, only to find out it wasn't the current version >>> that the list was about. >>> >>> I'm not complaining; the point I'm leading up to is that the first >>> exposure most people have with a project like this is a website and a >>> file or files that they can download and try out. If the information on >>> the web page isn't clear or if the package is very complicated to >>> install, most people will pass the project by. That's what I do, and I >>> imagine the experienced developers you want to recruit aren't very >>> different. >>> >>> It seems to me that is why Ted's efforts are important. Regardless >>> of how incomplete the package is, people should be pointed to something >>> they can download and install with relatively little effort. Once they >>> get interested, they will be more willing to rsync the development >>> package from John's server, join the mailing list, and contribute to the >>> project. In other words, UX2 needs UX2BS, but UX2BS also needs UX2. >>> >>> wordily, >> >> >> >> Maybe Redux should be tagged UX2(current) instead of (unstable) It may >> scare people away. It may well be stable but include a warning that it >> may not be since it's the current development model leading up to the >> next release. The release version on unixos2.com would be UX2(stable). >> Their all BSD conventions. >> > > This weekend I'll make a ux2-current mailing list and put the ux2bs > subscribers on that. If you don't want to be on it just unsubscribe or > disregard the verification email. This way nobody will be left out. > I'll try to rename everything this weekend so we can download that thing > and see what needs to be trimmed and replaced. You can get it now but I > would wait till I announce it so everyone starts with the same version. > Once it's cleaned up the first order of business should be replacing that ux2bs_install(bootstrap).cmd with a 'real' dialog based install. There's a lot of work ahead for both teams. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 25 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:17:50 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >The /XFREE86 directory will not exist anymore, finally. It's now in /usr >with 4.4.0 If you want to use already ported apps your going to haveto keep /XFree86 around for a while. Too many apps depend on it. Yesterday started moving things from /XFree86 to /usr/X11R6, started trying to build gtk-1.2.9 by applying the patch from 1.2.8 which was labeled as 1.2.2. No fun, the patch patched both the Imakefile and configure.in. Couldn't get it to build either way (imake or configure) and I think it will take a custom makefile to produce a compatible DLL. I think a lot of X apps are going to be a bitch to rebuild and take time. I'd suggest keeping /XFree86 with /usr/X11R6 ahead in the PATH etc and eventually move everything we can to /usr/X11R6 Dave _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:35:54 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:59:29PM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >/proc > >/dev > >/boot > > > >Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot > >scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used > > Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? I think EMX already provides one... > Regards - Rodney Pont > E-mail by PMMail - listm4 at infohitsystems.ltd.uk > > really weird out of context words courtesy of PMMail's spellchecker -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:20:12 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:34:36 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >Maybe Redux should be tagged UX2(current) instead of (unstable) It may >scare people away. It may well be stable but include a warning that it >may not be since it's the current development model leading up to the >next release. The release version on unixos2.com would be UX2(stable). >Their all BSD conventions. Could always go with Debian conventions. Unstable, testing and stable Dave _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 26 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:18:52 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:28:17 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >> >> Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? >> > >Yeah it would. That stays. No it will conflict with EMXs /dev/null which is linked to OS/2s \dev\null. At least I've had at least one configure run die due to a real /dev/null. Try doing a dir null and dir nul in your boot drive. Dave _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:33:56 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Dave Yeo wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:28:17 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>>Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? >>> >> >>Yeah it would. That stays. > > > No it will conflict with EMXs /dev/null which is linked to OS/2s > \dev\null. At least I've had at least one configure run die due to a > real /dev/null. > Try doing a dir null and dir nul in your boot drive. > Dave > > OK it's back out. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:20:20 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:35:26 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >Hmm haven't used 4.4.0 yet. Maybe we can leave it up to the user and >put it in the README. Perhaps let it be created when an app wants to be installed to /XFree86. Of course then it needs to be added to PATH, LIBPATH, C_INCLUDE_PATH, LIBRARY_PATH etc depending Dave _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 27 ==========================** Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:35:26 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Dave Yeo wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>The /XFREE86 directory will not exist anymore, finally. It's now in /usr >>with 4.4.0 > > > If you want to use already ported apps your going to haveto keep /XFree86 around for a while. Too many apps depend on it. Yesterday started moving things from /XFree86 to /usr/X11R6, started trying to build gtk-1.2.9 by applying the patch from 1.2.8 which was labeled as 1.2.2. No fun, the patch patched both the Imakefile and configure.in. Couldn't get it to build either way (imake or configure) and I think it will take a custom makefile to produce a compatible DLL. > I think a lot of X apps are going to be a bitch to rebuild and take time. > I'd suggest keeping /XFree86 with /usr/X11R6 ahead in the PATH etc and eventually move everything we can to /usr/X11R6 > Dave > > Hmm haven't used 4.4.0 yet. Maybe we can leave it up to the user and put it in the README. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:41:55 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 08:17:50PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > I think a lot of X apps are going to be a bitch to rebuild and take time. I'd really like to see a list of X apps which have been ported to OS/2. Does anyone know if such a list exists? We need to go about rebuilding them in systematic way. I'd like to get rid of the dependency on \XFree86 as soon as possible > Dave -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 28 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:46:40 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 07:29:47PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:59:29PM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: > > > >>On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >> > >> > >>>/proc > >>>/dev > >>>/boot > >>> > >>>Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot > >>>scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used > >> > >>Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? > > > > > > I think EMX already provides one... > > It might be useful I seem to recall autoconf looking for it on a ports. Can you recall where? If you are referring to a version of autoconf which has been superceeded, then it is not required. We have to know precisely why certain files are included otherwise a lot of unnecessary junk gets accumulated and no one knows why. As it stands now, which program fails if there is no /dev/null ? > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 29 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:12:20 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:57:41PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >>> I'm for that! The 'make buildworld'/'make installworld' from FreeBSD. > >>> Now that is cool! But the basic system still has to be installed. > >>> > > A 'build all' should be pretty simple once we have something to > build. There already are quite a lot of apps which build. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:41:32 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 06:44:45PM -0500, Anton Monroe wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:58:54PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > If the information on > the web page isn't clear or if the package is very complicated to > install, most people will pass the project by. The thing about UX2BS is that it isn't very complicated to install. It couldn't be easier. The whole aim of UX2BS is to make the building of apps as easy as possible by creating an environment which limits the scope for error as much as possible. A fully automated build environment has been my aim in this project. That is one of the reasons it has been so painfully slow. > wordily, > Anton -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 30 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:38:47 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 08:17:50PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > > >>I think a lot of X apps are going to be a bitch to rebuild and take time. > > > I'd really like to see a list of X apps which have been ported to OS/2. > Does anyone know if such a list exists? We need to go about rebuilding > them in systematic way. I'd like to get rid of the dependency on \XFree86 > as soon as possible > Alexander Mai created one quite a while ago. I'll see if I can track it down. Pretty much everything ported is here: http://os2ports.com/sections/ports -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:14:58 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:33:47PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:17:07PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > > > > >>I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. > > > > > > > > I've never been clear whether you actually got UX2BS built from scratch > > using ux2_bootstrap... > > > > > > Last time, I recall you having some sort of problems with passive ftp and > > I don't know if you've tried since. > > Yeah I had it working. How well did it work? I never got much feedback. Have you tried it recently? There have been quite a few chages. > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 31 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:40:15 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 07:29:47PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >>John Poltorak wrote: >> >>>On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:59:29PM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:43:55 -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>/proc >>>>>/dev >>>>>/boot >>>>> >>>>>Probably not required. Those are for Unix, processes, boot >>>>>scripts/kernel and mountable filesystems. These are all not used >>>> >>>>Wouldn't a /dev/null be useful? >>> >>> >>>I think EMX already provides one... >> >>It might be useful I seem to recall autoconf looking for it on a ports. > > > Can you recall where? > > If you are referring to a version of autoconf which has been superceeded, > then it is not required. We have to know precisely why certain files are > included otherwise a lot of unnecessary junk gets accumulated and no one > knows why. > > As it stands now, which program fails if there is no /dev/null ? > Can't remember > >>-- >>T.Sikora >>tsikora at ntplx dot net > > > -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 32 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:48:10 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:38:47AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > John Poltorak wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 08:17:50PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > > > > > >>I think a lot of X apps are going to be a bitch to rebuild and take time. > > > > > > I'd really like to see a list of X apps which have been ported to OS/2. > > Does anyone know if such a list exists? We need to go about rebuilding > > them in systematic way. I'd like to get rid of the dependency on \XFree86 > > as soon as possible > > > > Alexander Mai created one quite a while ago. I'll see if I can track it > down. Pretty much everything ported is here: > > http://os2ports.com/sections/ports Any chance of a directory listing? Or can I get one using WGET? > -- > T.Sikora > tsikora at ntplx dot net -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 33 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:15:17 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: bootAble.UX2 I've just been looking at the bootAble package, see:- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hrbaan/ and this looks like a brilliant project which I've never used before. The idea is to create a bootable OS/2 CD which is incredibly configurable. The configuration is done through a variety of scripts which come included in the package. My immediate idea was to see if we could get a prototype UnixOS/2 distro included. To be able to that we need to come up with a bootAble.UX2 script which will copy all the required files into an ISO image of the CD. It would be interesting to see if it worked. I've never use this utility before but hope to get it working fairly soon. If I can get it working, I'll see if I can manage to get UX2BS installed on it. -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 61 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:43:51 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:33:47PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >>John Poltorak wrote: >> >>>On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:17:07PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. >>> >>> >>> >>>I've never been clear whether you actually got UX2BS built from scratch >>>using ux2_bootstrap... >>> >>> >>>Last time, I recall you having some sort of problems with passive ftp and >>>I don't know if you've tried since. >> >>Yeah I had it working. > > > How well did it work? I never got much feedback. It worked. When done I used some of those scripts you made and it still did. > > Have you tried it recently? There have been quite a few chages. > Not for a while. I plan on running it this weekend and disecting it before I do anything to ux2-current. If anything we have a roadmap for UX2. Nothings written in stone so we can change it as we go along. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:43:51 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 02:33:47PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > >>John Poltorak wrote: >> >>>On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 09:17:07PM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I'll have to run UX2BS and see what has changed since. >>> >>> >>> >>>I've never been clear whether you actually got UX2BS built from scratch >>>using ux2_bootstrap... >>> >>> >>>Last time, I recall you having some sort of problems with passive ftp and >>>I don't know if you've tried since. >> >>Yeah I had it working. > > > How well did it work? I never got much feedback. It worked. When done I used some of those scripts you made and it still did. > > Have you tried it recently? There have been quite a few chages. > Not for a while. I plan on running it this weekend and disecting it before I do anything to ux2-current. If anything we have a roadmap for UX2. Nothings written in stone so we can change it as we go along. -- T.Sikora tsikora at ntplx dot net _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs