Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 00:07:26 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [Ux2bs_Archive] No. 331 ************************************************** Sunday 23 May 2004 Number 331 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Need help building MAN : Dave Yeo" 2 Re: Need help building MAN : John Poltorak 3 Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 : Anton Monroe **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 08:13:00 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: Need help building MAN On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:42:46 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: >> Didn't Jun Sawatasha have a patch for MAN? Here >> http://homepage1.nifty.com/jsawa/linux/man15g.zip which is definately a >> better port then I could do, even includes support for running in a >> xterm > >I'm hoping to incorporate some of those patches, I just don't like the way >the program gets built. It also requires a configuration file being placed >in \os2\etc which is undesirable IMV. Well that is actually a fallback if %MAN_CONF% is not set and would be easy to change to eg /usr/share/misc. Just find c:\os2\etc in the patch (src/paths.h) or patched source and change it. Actually you just have to define CONFIG_FILE= x:/pathto/man.conf before building. This way the location of %MAN_CONF% can be custumized for every install, g: here, c: there As forthe way the program gets built. You could spend a lot of time trying to fix or write configure scripts whereas really we need to get this working soon and custom makefiles aren't so bad with mature apps. Look at zip, KUR wrote that makefile 10 odd years ago and it still works. Programs under active development will break now and again even with configure scripts. Dave _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 16:24:20 +0100 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: Need help building MAN On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:13:00AM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > As forthe way the program gets built. You could spend a lot of time > trying to fix or write configure scripts Tell me about it ;-)... The thing is that the MAN configure script *looks* as though it should be relatively easy to fix, but I can't figure it out. Maybe I'm just not as good at shell scripts as I'd like to think... > Programs under active development will break now and again even with > configure scripts. The thing I prefer about configure scripts is that they create Makefiles tailored to your environment and you don't need to edit any paths. They also tend to cater for installing the program and its ancillary files into the correct locations. > Dave -- John _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:42:16 -0500 From: Anton Monroe Subject: Re: rsync and 213.152.37.92 On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 04:55:05PM +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > It's rather > > a Rube Goldbergish setup-- my OS/2 batch file has to make the zip files, then > > ssh to the Linux machine and run a script there so the files get pulled from > > the receiving end. That's the only reason I have an rsync server on the OS/2 > > machine. > > That seems a bit convoluted - although I can't really understand whatyou > are doing. I don't remember exactly what the problem was, but I had trouble getting the OS/2 port to upload to an rsync daemon. It's just a matter of one script calling another, except the second script happens to be on a different machine. It all happens in one OS/2 window. Logging into the Linux machine via ssh just takes a mouse click. That's how I'm writing this-- in an OS/2 window that is actually running Mutt on the Linux machine. Mutt is configured to use the Midnight Commander editor. So I can, say, display a UX2BS log file in another window and paste part of it into a message with the mouse, and then use to import the Linux /etc/rsynd.conf file into the same message. I still have some minor glitches with the terminal emulation, though. > > A reasonable assumption. When I first tried ux2_bootstrap.cmd I > > couldn't get ftp to work. I got the impression that it doesn't work for > > some people for unknown reasons. (from reading the list archives? Or > > maybe from a comment in Ted's package?) > > It's probably related to passive FTP. I don't know anything about that > myself. In my case, I don't think so. At least, NFTP does not need to use passive mode. One of these days I'll look into it again. > > > > 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. > > > > Oh, I know. But Rodney asked. Also, sometimes manual changes have to be > > made. UX2BS simply won't work on my machine unless I change the DPATH > > statement. > > Any local changes should be made via ux2_local.cmd. It's best to keep > things as standardised as possible. That's where I make my DPATCH change. However, ux2_inst.cmd overwrites ux2_local.cmd each time it is run. Maybe ux2_inst.cmd should also have a 'pause' after the line that says "echo Baseline UX2BS has now been installed"? Or maybe it should skip writing ux2_local.cmd if ux2_local.cmd already exists? Anton _______________________________________________ UX2BS mailing list UX2BS at os2ports.com http://os2ports.com/mailman/listinfo/ux2bs