Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 00:07:28 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 329 ************************************************** Friday 21 May 2004 Number 329 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 2 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Stefan.Neis at t-online.de 1 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Anton Monroe 3 Re: PINFO : Anton Monroe 2 Re: PINFO : John Poltorak 4 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : T.Sikora" 3 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : Jon Saxton" 5 rsync and 213.152.37.92 : Rodney Pont" 6 Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 : Rodney Pont" 7 Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 : Anton Monroe 8 Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 : John Poltorak 9 Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... : John Poltorak 18 Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 : John Poltorak 4 Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:15:46 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Hi, > and I still believe that > building an app on the system it is going to be used on is preferred to > downloading and installing a pre-compiled binary. Actually, I find that I'm prefering installation of pre-compiled binaries even on Solaris (and once you've had a closer look at Solaris' built-in package management and its obscure command lines, you'll find that _really_ surprising) ... Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 18:46:29 +0100 From: Stefan.Neis at t-online.de Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... Hi, > A downloadable package of zip files that > contains a mixture of binary files and a build environment could be an > effective way to attract the attention of the developers you want. Actually, one of the main problems is the amount of time any given developper can spend on the project. Personally, I "waste" the time I have currently available for wxWindows (and I have more and more the feeling I'm really wasting my time on that PM port, as I'm unable to even keep up with the changes to the other ports, much less improve the currently admittedly quite poor quality of the port) and some minor testing of Innoteks gcc. Downloading/testing yet another development environment requires time that's way beyond what I have available, so I'm reduced to read this mailing list and drop more or less useful hints here and there ... Regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:47:59 -0500 From: Anton Monroe Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:15:46PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:18:03AM -0500, Anton Monroe wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:41:32AM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > 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. > > > > No question, the automated installation is one of the strengths of UX2BS. > > In general, I like it. > > That is the point od UX2BS. It means that anyone should expect to be able > to build programs by running 'build program' without having to read lots > of different docs which go on about what you need to set up in your > environment first. It should just work automagically as it tends to do on > Unix. > > > However, ease is in the perception of the user. Say I'm an outsider who > > knows nothing about UX2BS. > > Well maybe you shouldn't have been using it. It is primarily a prototype > build system which, at this point in time is geared towards people > familiar with building ported apps on OS/2. Those are the sort of people > whose feedback is likely to make it more capable. The normal user isn't > likely to be interested in building apps from source - they just want a > pre-compiled binary which they can install. > > > > put off trying it until I have more time. My perception would be that > > this is "not easy". > > > Have you previously tried building Perl by following the build > instructions included? Now *that* is 'not easy', but running 'build perl' > is and has been proved to be easy by the numerous people who have done it > successfully. > > > None of this is intended as a criticism of ux2_bootstrap.cmd. It is > > well designed for what it is used for-- installing the current version > > of a package that changes every day. But I don't think it is the right > > way to give outsiders a first look at what UX2 and UX2BS are about. > > UX2BS is not intended to be used by people who have not built programs > before. It is there as a tool for those people who do want an easy way of > building a Unix-like environment for themselves, and I still believe that > building an app on the system it is going to be used on is preferred to > downloading and installing a pre-compiled binary. I think you forgot the context in which I was speaking. That may be my fault; I tend to quote minimally on the theory that most people won't read a page of backquotes anyway. Let me try again: Ted thinks people need a binary package now. You are more focused on the Build System and you want to see more experienced developers involved in it. I sense that those are sometimes seen as conflicting, or at least different, objectives. My contribution, for whatever it's worth, was simply this: A downloadable package of zip files that contains a mixture of binary files and a build environment could be an effective way to attract the attention of the developers you want. I was =not= discussing "what is the best way to build applications". I was discussing "how to get more developers involved in the project". Of course, I'm assuming that the psychology of developers is similar to that of normal people. I may be wrong about that. Anton _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:36:09 -0500 From: Anton Monroe Subject: Re: PINFO On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:36:34PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > I've now managed to get PINFO built using UX2BS, How? So far, I've figured out that I need to add "-Dstrncasecmp=strnicmp -Dstrcasecmp=stricmp" to the build.table. That sounds reasonable. I also have to pass "ac_given_srcdir=." to ./configure. That looks suspicious. Should I conclude that autoconf isn't confing correctly? Does UX2BS have an easy way to try different versions of autoconf? Anton _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 19:09:17 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: PINFO On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:36:09PM -0500, Anton Monroe wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:36:34PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > I've now managed to get PINFO built using UX2BS, > > How? It worked using the existing configure script, ie without running autoconf. It doesn't work though - probably needs some source code changes. > So far, I've figured out that I need to add > "-Dstrncasecmp=strnicmp -Dstrcasecmp=stricmp" to the build.table. > That sounds reasonable. It might sound reasonable but it isn't necessary because Posix/2 includes the required functions and that is used by default. > I also have to pass "ac_given_srcdir=." to ./configure. > That looks suspicious. Should I conclude that autoconf isn't confing > correctly? Does UX2BS have an easy way to try different versions of > autoconf? There are three seperate versions of autoconf in UX2BS. The correct one is specified by including the appropriate path for the version required. Look in \unixos2\scripts\pre-process at the scripts for byacc and make to see how different versions are invoked. BTW if you want to avoid running autoconf you need to create a zero file with the name of the app you are building. This should be placed in \unixos2\scripts\pre-conf. > > Anton -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:22:36 -0400 From: "T.Sikora" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:21:59AM -0400, T.Sikora wrote: > > >>Maybe I'm being stubborn but I still see UX2BS as the 'core developers' >>group that builds the routines and mechanisims for the distribution. > > > At the moment there is no mechanism to link the built app to a > distributable PKG without manual intervention. I see that as a major > problem. > > On top of that UX2BS won't even build a number of core apps which it > should, which means you will end up including quite a number of different > versions of INTL.DLL and REGEX.DLL. This is one of the things I wanted to > avoid. > > > >>I >>really don't see the Build System as a standalone system. UX2 the >>distribution is what we should be building. Let me know if I'm wrong but >>that is my understanding of all this. > > > Apart from distributable PKGs I would like to see the creation of an ISO > image of a UNIXROOT directory complete with as many apps installed as > possible. > > Another thing which would be handy to have is an OS/2 equivalent of > ZIPSLACK. > CD runable system for UX2 with X. Now that is pretty cool and a pratical goal for UX2. Pop the cd in open a shell and your Unix env is set. Now that is something I would support. > > > >>-- >>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 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:25:56 -0400 From: "Jon Saxton" Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... I've been reading the correspondence posted here for several days. I think I even understood some of it and I appreciate the value of the work put into these projects. It was very nice to be able to say "build pthread" and have the thing start up. Of course it would have been even nicer if the pthread source had been available but I appreciate that not everything is in place yet. I want to introduce a perspective which is somewhat different from that of the other correspondents without being in conflict with it. I am a die-hard OS/2 user. I write applications software in C++ that ends up running on UNIX or Windows but I do all my develoment and testing on OS/2. I aim for, and usually achieve, 100% source code compatability on all three platforms (including makefiles) so for the most part my total usage of the end system is to run the make. In two years I have not had a bug that could not be reproduced, traced and fixed on OS/2. I have never done any fault tracing on Windows or UNIX and the only testing I have ever done on UNIX is some database stuff because I don't have an OS/2 Oracle client or a database precompiler. So what does this have to do with UX2, UX2BS and UnixOS2? Well for my work I need to have exactly the same environment on each platform, which means compatible compilers and libraries. GCC offers the compatible compilers. The libraries are the key issue for me. The developers of open source libraries seldom include OS/2 as a target platform so I often find that I need to use something on Windows and/or UNIX that isn't available on OS/2. Not an application but something which goes by the ugly name of "middleware". I have no recourse other than to build the library myself. For me this was the hope offered by UX2BS. Somehow my initial install of UX2BS was the version now described as "Redux" which is not a word that appears in my Oxford English Dictionary and thus leaves me without any concept to attach to it. My second install was the "proper" UX2BS which had a smaller footprint on my system. It seemed to work well enough and perform the functions for which it was intended. However I was unable to use this version because the only compiler it offered was gcc 2.8.1 which was far too old to be compatible with the other platforms. Presumably there is some good reason for sticking to the old compiler, although I can't imagine what it is. I have been using 3.2.x for two years and I have not found any problem with it so if it is at all practical, I would implore the build system maintainers to migrate to the newer compiler. It probably doesn't matter too much for C code, but C++ is an evolving language and 2.8.1 just doesn't support all the modern features. For this reason I am back to using "redux" even though I understand that it too is in flux. I have been able to build pthreads (from another source) although the "install" phase seems broken and I have to figure out where to put all the finished components now. (That scares me a bit because if I reinstall a later version of redux at some time then I'll have to do it over again.) Nevertheless, I have had success of sorts. Now I need some other libraries, in particular, a stream socket class library. At some stage I'd like to get ACE working on OS/2 and perhaps the Boost libraries. So what is the point of all this? Simply that it is not just the applications that are important but, in its broadest sense, the development environment itself. At least for me. Since I am building bits of the development environment for my own use, it would be nice if I could make the results of my efforts available for others but I haven't the faintest idea of how any work that I do could contribute to the three Unix-OS/2 projects which to me seem similar in concept but different in implementation. I do not understand the automated configuration processes that get invoked in many of the UNIXy builds. (I've looked at some of the shell scripts and they seem comprehensible enough in detail but not overall.) -- Jon Saxton Developer of cross-platform software for UNIX, Windows and OS/2 U.S. agent for Triton Technologies International Ltd http://www.triton.vg/ _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 06:33:50 +0100 (BST) From: "Rodney Pont" Subject: rsync and 213.152.37.92 I've gone back to this to try and reinstall but I don't get a response from 213.152.37.92 anymore. I want to install on my workstation but I see the tx light on the modem flash but no rx. I'm connecting through my server with InJoy and am using NAT. I have a mirrored 213.152.37.92 to my server since I thought I'd try and install from that but I'm confused by the rsync docs and can't work out what 'rsync -av %host%::build %bldrt%/%bld_home%' should be fetching with the ::build parameter. From reading the docs I get the impression that there will be a file saying what build does but I've no idea where it should be or what it should contain, and there are others later in the build. Any guidance will be appreciated but it's ten years since I used C on a Unix system V system so I've got a lot to remember and a lot to learn so is there any documentation for the tools online anywhere that is relevant to this environment? 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 6 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 10:25:29 +0100 (BST) From: "Rodney Pont" Subject: Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 On Fri, 21 May 2004 09:12:45 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> I've gone back to this to try and reinstall but I don't get a response >> from 213.152.37.92 anymore. > >Nothing at all? Can you ping it? No response to ping from the workstation but it does work from the server. I do get a response to ping for other sites such as bbc.co.uk. >> I have a mirrored 213.152.37.92 to my server since I thought I'd try >> and install from that but I'm confused by the rsync docs and can't work >> out what 'rsync -av %host%::build %bldrt%/%bld_home%' should be >> fetching with the ::build parameter. > > >'build' simply refers to a label in the servers rsyncd.conf :- > > >[build] > comment = (UnixOS/2 Build System) > path = /xitami/ftproot/unixos2/pub/unixos2/build_system > read only = yes > list = yes Thanks, that will get me started and I can probably work out what others should be as I come across them. 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 7 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 06:35:01 -0500 From: Anton Monroe Subject: Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:33:50AM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: > I have a mirrored 213.152.37.92 to my server since I thought I'd try > and install from that but I'm confused by the rsync docs and can't work > out what 'rsync -av %host%::build %bldrt%/%bld_home%' should be > fetching with the ::build parameter. From reading the docs I get the > impression that there will be a file saying what build does but I've no > idea where it should be or what it should contain, and there are others > later in the build. I normally install UX2BS from a local mirror on a Linux machine. It's easier that way because the rsync for OS/2 is crippled. I use rsync to make the mirror, but since you already have your mirror I'll skip that part. You need to have rsync running as a daemon on your server. Type "rsync --daemon". If the server runs OS/2 you need to work around the fact that rsync doesn't understand drive letters. So any files rsync needs to read or write have to be on the current drive. Ie, the files it serves up, the configuration file, message file, log file, pid file. You need to write /etc/rsyncd.conf and it must provide the two modules that John has on his server. Mine looks like this, with some irrelevant parts removed: #==================== rsyncd.conf =============================== # rsync defaults to gid = nobody, but that group is called nogroup on SuSE Linux gid = nogroup read only = true use chroot = true # transfer logging = true # log format = %h %o %f %l %b # log file = /var/log/rsyncd.log timeout=600 # motd file = /etc/rsyncheader # ignore nonreadable = 1 # secrets file = /etc/rsyncd.secrets [baseline] path = /pub/unixos2/baseline comment = UX2BS baseline from John Poltorak # read only = true # hosts allow = *.local [build] path = /pub/unixos2/build_system comment = UX2BS build from John Poltorak # read only = true # hosts allow = *.local #==================================================================== I've commented out a few lines that aren't really necessary. The important part is [module_name] path = {path to that module} comment = {description of that module} My server is called elm.local. So if I type "rsync elm.local::" the daemon will respond by listing baseline UX2BS baseline from John Poltorak build UX2BS build from John Poltorak You need to edit ux2_bootstrap.cmd to set %osrt%, %uxrt%, and %bldrt% anyway. You also need to change %host%. In my case to "set host=elm.local" There is one other complication. For rsync, the directory structure on your server does not need to be the same as John's. You must have the 'build' and 'baseline' modules, but the actual path to those directories doesn't matter. But ux2_bootstrap.cmd uses ftp to get the first three files. That depends on a specific directory structure. Instead of trying to duplicate the directories on John's ftp server, it might be easier just to manually transfer rsync.exe, emx.dll, and emxlibcs.dll into your root directory before running ux2_bootstrap.cmd. Hope that helps, Anton _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:57:21 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:35:01AM -0500, Anton Monroe wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:33:50AM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: > I normally install UX2BS from a local mirror on a Linux machine. It's > easier that way because the rsync for OS/2 is crippled. It would be nice to *un*-cripple it... I've tried building more recent versions but never got anywhere. I guess some source code changes are required but it would be nice to see if some of the patches can be removed and eventually come up with a patch which could be submitted to the RSYNC developers so that we could expect future versions to build on OS/2 straight out of the box. > You need to write /etc/rsyncd.conf and it must provide the two modules > that John has on his server. Mine looks like this, with some irrelevant > parts removed: > > #==================== rsyncd.conf =============================== > # rsync defaults to gid = nobody, but that group is called nogroup on SuSE Linux > gid = nogroup > read only = true > use chroot = true > # transfer logging = true > # log format = %h %o %f %l %b > # log file = /var/log/rsyncd.log Have you ever tried getting logging to work on OS/2? That is something I could do with adding. > But ux2_bootstrap.cmd uses ftp to get the first three > files. The reason for that is that it is reasonable to assume that FTP will already be installed on the user's system. > That depends on a specific directory structure. Instead of > trying to duplicate the directories on John's ftp server, it might be > easier just to manually transfer rsync.exe, emx.dll, and emxlibcs.dll > into your root directory before running ux2_bootstrap.cmd. Once you start altering things manually, you are on a slippery slope to chaos and will be unable to recreate the same environment at a future time. The whole point of UX2BS is to have an automated system. > > Hope that helps, > Anton -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 14:22:48 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Re: Plans for UX2BS/UnixOS2... On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 06:46:29PM +0100, Stefan.Neis at t-online.de wrote: > so I'm reduced to > read this mailing list and drop more or less useful hints here and there > .. Well those hints are very much appreciated. > > Regards, > Stefan -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 18 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:12:45 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:33:50AM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: > I've gone back to this to try and reinstall but I don't get a response > from 213.152.37.92 anymore. Nothing at all? Can you ping it? > I want to install on my workstation but I > see the tx light on the modem flash but no rx. I'm connecting through > my server with InJoy and am using NAT. > > I have a mirrored 213.152.37.92 to my server since I thought I'd try > and install from that but I'm confused by the rsync docs and can't work > out what 'rsync -av %host%::build %bldrt%/%bld_home%' should be > fetching with the ::build parameter. 'build' simply refers to a label in the servers rsyncd.conf :- [build] comment = (UnixOS/2 Build System) path = /xitami/ftproot/unixos2/pub/unixos2/build_system read only = yes list = yes > 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 4 ==========================** Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 09:12:45 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:33:50AM +0100, Rodney Pont wrote: > I've gone back to this to try and reinstall but I don't get a response > from 213.152.37.92 anymore. Nothing at all? Can you ping it? > I want to install on my workstation but I > see the tx light on the modem flash but no rx. I'm connecting through > my server with InJoy and am using NAT. > > I have a mirrored 213.152.37.92 to my server since I thought I'd try > and install from that but I'm confused by the rsync docs and can't work > out what 'rsync -av %host%::build %bldrt%/%bld_home%' should be > fetching with the ::build parameter. 'build' simply refers to a label in the servers rsyncd.conf :- [build] comment = (UnixOS/2 Build System) path = /xitami/ftproot/unixos2/pub/unixos2/build_system read only = yes list = yes > 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