Quick note,
Before we get _too_ organised, I would like to insert a quick note. A number of messages back someone suggested we divide the OOo source into subprojects, but before we do this we probably ought to look at the dependencies. If OOo requires Neon, then "Neon" is probably a good subproject to begin with, not "OOo WebDAV".
Some things like might be ported, other replaced, but all in all the best subproject to begin with might be "OOo dependencies".
Oh, and my AW nick is "Tesla" (unobviously :).
-Peter aka. Archprogrammer
Reality is for people who cannot face ScienceFiction. Only lefthanded people are in their right minds.
Hello Peter
On 09/01/2005, you wrote:
Quick note,
Before we get _too_ organised, I would like to insert a quick note. A number of messages back someone suggested we divide the OOo source into subprojects, but before we do this we probably ought to look at the dependencies. If OOo requires Neon, then "Neon" is probably a good subproject to begin with, not "OOo WebDAV".
Some things like might be ported, other replaced, but all in all the best subproject to begin with might be "OOo dependencies".
That's one of the many things that needs doing.
Oh, and my AW nick is "Tesla" (unobviously :).
What about your amigadev.amigaworld.net nick?
-Peter aka. Archprogrammer
Regards
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
Quick note,
Before we get _too_ organised, I would like to insert a quick note. A number of messages back someone suggested we divide the OOo source into subprojects, but before we do this we probably ought to look at the dependencies. If OOo requires Neon, then "Neon" is probably a good subproject to begin with, not "OOo WebDAV".
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile: http://porting.openoffice.org/porting_overview.html
http://porting.openoffice.org/porting_doclinks.html
http://tools.openoffice.org/dev_docs/build_linux.html#BuildRequirements
http://tools.openoffice.org/ext_comp.html
Some things like might be ported, other replaced, but all in all the best subproject to begin with might be "OOo dependencies".
Oh, and my AW nick is "Tesla" (unobviously :).
-Peter aka. Archprogrammer
Reality is for people who cannot face ScienceFiction. Only lefthanded people are in their right minds.
Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile:
What specifically do you have in mind ? Perl ? Java ?
Regards,
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile:
What specifically do you have in mind ? Perl ? Java ?
Software Requirements
* glibc 2.1.x or higher
Well, this is of course not what we're gonna need :-) Do we have a list of what CAN'T be done at the moment with our own C library? Or is there anything?
* gcc: OpenOffice.org has been successfully build under Linux using the gcc versions 3.0.x, 3.1.1, 3.2.x, and 3.3.x. Older versions were built with gcc 2.95.2, 2.95 support is not maintained for current branches however. Version 2.96 does not work!
Which version do we have?=
* The X11 development libraries and header files should be installed. Should be in place with most Linux distributions.
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
* PAM (should come with most Linux distributions). You must install the development package for your distribution.
Uhm, this is an interesting dependency.
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org 1.1.1, see issue 16626.
Obviously we need some work here, or?
* If you are building with JDK 1.3.1, you need to download crimson.jar from http://xml.apache.org/crimson/ and xalan.jar and xml-apis.jar from http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/index.html and add these to the compilation classpath
Hopefully doable once we have the above :-)
* Perl 5
Can also be done, no?
* csh Note that you can start a build in bash however all the scripts in the build system are actually csh scripts.
OO.ops :-) I asked about this the other day. What do we do for build scripts. Anyone? Write a minimal c-shell? I found this: http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/amiga/shells/csh/Csh-5.19.readme But it says it's not script-compatible. Possible to MAKE it script-compatible, or easier to start from scratch? Porting tsch possible? Discuss.
* zip and unzip Check
* The gpc general polygon clipper library release 2.31, located at http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/alan/software/. Download and unpack the tarball. You should have the files gpc.c and gpc.h in $SRC_ROOT/external/gpc.
?
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then you need the gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.
Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
* Ant Is required to build some features. This is a Java Make utility.
Perl Module requirements
The perl modules will be tested by configure beginning in V2.0. Here is a list of the modules that you can install. Module: Used for: Archive::Zip packing image lists, evtl. for further zipping needs XML::Parser expat based parser for the new XML based build lists
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren writes:
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Uhm, this is an interesting dependency.
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org1.1.1, see issue 16626.
Obviously we need some work here, or?
* If you are building with JDK 1.3.1, you need to download crimson.jarfrom http://xml.apache.org/crimson/ and xalan.jar and xml-apis.jar from http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/index.html and add these to the compilation classpath
If you read the porting document Java is used because of some XML config files ?? however apparently there is also a (flakey??) python script to do the same thing and could perhaps be used instead..
Mark
Hi,
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
Software Requirements
* glibc 2.1.x or higher
Which isn't available on Windows, either... AFAIK, they use the command line parsing from glibc, i.e. getopt_long...
* gcc: OpenOffice.org has been successfully build under Linuxusing the gcc versions 3.0.x, 3.1.1, 3.2.x, and 3.3.x. Older versions were built with gcc 2.95.2, 2.95 support is not maintained for current branches however. Version 2.96 does not work!
Which version do we have?=
We have the most current one, i.e. 3.4.3
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
We'll definitely not using X.
* PAM (should come with most Linux distributions). You mustinstall the development package for your distribution.
Uhm, this is an interesting dependency.
What sort of dependency is this, anyway ? Are you listing the Linux dependencies, or what ? In this case, this might not be necessary for us.
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org1.1.1, see issue 16626.
Obviously we need some work here, or?
AFAIK, it's not needed if you use some python replacement...
* Perl 5Can also be done, no?
If it needs to be done, yes...
* csh Note that you can start a build in bash however all thescripts in the build system are actually csh scripts.
OO.ops :-) I asked about this the other day. What do we do for build scripts. Anyone? Write a minimal c-shell?
Some of us started this (http://sourceforge.net/projects/abc-shell/) some time ago... It's still some way from being finished, but it somwhat works already...
* zip and unzipCheck
If everything else would be so simple :/
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then youneed the gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.
Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
Exactly. We don't have no stinking crashes ;)
- Ant Is required to build some features. This is a Java Make utility.
That's of course a problem... without Java, that is..
Damn, they adopted their own build system (dmake), so why not frigging stick to it ?
Regards,
Hi,
On 10/1/05 12:42 pm, "Thomas Frieden" ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
We'll definitely not using X.
Aw, that the "fun" part of trying to get OpenOffice to install on MacOS X! Please excuse the novice question, but will we be simply be converting to Amiga draw functions rather than converting it over to use the Amiga UI?
What sort of dependency is this, anyway ? Are you listing the Linux dependencies, or what ? In this case, this might not be necessary for us.
Didn't they tell you? You have to port GNU/Linux first :-)
That's of course a problem... without Java, that is..
Damn, they adopted their own build system (dmake), so why not frigging stick to it ?
I've been doing some further research in OO.org 2.0. It appears that this new Database is also Java based, so it looks like that might possibly off the menu too (although AFAIK the 1.0 database connectivity will remain in there so we could still use MySQL etc.)
Hello Andy
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
On 10/1/05 12:42 pm, "Thomas Frieden" ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
We'll definitely not using X.
Aw, that the "fun" part of trying to get OpenOffice to install on MacOS X! Please excuse the novice question, but will we be simply be converting to Amiga draw functions rather than converting it over to use the Amiga UI?
IIRC OOo uses it's own GUI toolkit, so i suppose only the draw functions should be needed. BTW, X11 is available on Apple's site for download ;)
What sort of dependency is this, anyway ? Are you listing the Linux dependencies, or what ? In this case, this might not be necessary for us.
Didn't they tell you? You have to port GNU/Linux first :-)
We could always peek at the windows port (me ducks)
That's of course a problem... without Java, that is..
Damn, they adopted their own build system (dmake), so why not frigging stick to it ?
I've been doing some further research in OO.org 2.0. It appears that this new Database is also Java based, so it looks like that might possibly off the menu too (although AFAIK the 1.0 database connectivity will remain in there so we could still use MySQL etc.)
A java port would help...
Regards
On 10/1/05 6:07 pm, "Christophe Ochal" ochal@kefren.be wrote:
Aw, that the "fun" part of trying to get OpenOffice to install on MacOS X! Please excuse the novice question, but will we be simply be converting to Amiga draw functions rather than converting it over to use the Amiga UI?
IIRC OOo uses it's own GUI toolkit, so i suppose only the draw functions should be needed. BTW, X11 is available on Apple's site for download ;)
I know that. However I'm Hardcore ;-) I installed OO.o before Apple released their own X11. It was an interesting experience :-o
Hello Andy
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
On 10/1/05 6:07 pm, "Christophe Ochal" ochal@kefren.be wrote:
Aw, that the "fun" part of trying to get OpenOffice to install on MacOS X! Please excuse the novice question, but will we be simply be converting to Amiga draw functions rather than converting it over to use the Amiga UI?
IIRC OOo uses it's own GUI toolkit, so i suppose only the draw functions should be needed. BTW, X11 is available on Apple's site for download ;)
I know that. However I'm Hardcore ;-) I installed OO.o before Apple released their own X11. It was an interesting experience :-o
I did that too, when the port was first anounced, there was a 3rd party X11 you needed, never had any trouble with it actually, maybe i was lucky :p
Regards
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Hello Andy
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
On 10/1/05 12:42 pm, "Thomas Frieden" ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
We'll definitely not using X.
Aw, that the "fun" part of trying to get OpenOffice to install on MacOS X! Please excuse the novice question, but will we be simply be converting to Amiga draw functions rather than converting it over to use the Amiga UI?
IIRC OOo uses it's own GUI toolkit, so i suppose only the draw functions should be needed. BTW, X11 is available on Apple's site for download ;)
That would not be the Amiga way... I don't use AmigaOS to fall back to hell and use X11 :-(
What sort of dependency is this, anyway ? Are you listing the Linux dependencies, or what ? In this case, this might not be necessary for us.
Didn't they tell you? You have to port GNU/Linux first :-)
We could always peek at the windows port (me ducks)
That's of course a problem... without Java, that is..
Damn, they adopted their own build system (dmake), so why not frigging stick to it ?
I've been doing some further research in OO.org 2.0. It appears that this new Database is also Java based, so it looks like that might possibly off the menu too (although AFAIK the 1.0 database connectivity will remain in there so we could still use MySQL etc.)
A java port would help...
Regards
Hello Henning
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Hello Andy
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
On 10/1/05 12:42 pm, "Thomas Frieden" ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
We'll definitely not using X.
Aw, that the "fun" part of trying to get OpenOffice to install on MacOS X! Please excuse the novice question, but will we be simply be converting to Amiga draw functions rather than converting it over to use the Amiga UI?
IIRC OOo uses it's own GUI toolkit, so i suppose only the draw functions should be needed. BTW, X11 is available on Apple's site for download ;)
That would not be the Amiga way... I don't use AmigaOS to fall back to hell and use X11 :-(
? Where in that sentence did i say we had to use X11?
Regards
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Hello Henning
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Hello Andy
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
On 10/1/05 12:42 pm, "Thomas Frieden" ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
We'll definitely not using X.
Aw, that the "fun" part of trying to get OpenOffice to install on MacOS X! Please excuse the novice question, but will we be simply be converting to Amiga draw functions rather than converting it over to use the Amiga UI?
IIRC OOo uses it's own GUI toolkit, so i suppose only the draw functions should be needed. BTW, X11 is available on Apple's site for download ;)
That would not be the Amiga way... I don't use AmigaOS to fall back to hell and use X11 :-(
? Where in that sentence did i say we had to use X11?
Misunderstood You, thank God ;-) Sorry for misunderstanding You.
Regards
Hello Henning
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
<snip>
? Where in that sentence did i say we had to use X11?
Misunderstood You, thank God ;-) Sorry for misunderstanding You.
Don't worry, however, i think an X11.library would be usefull for some projects, but that might be alot of work and falls outside of this project's goal.
Regards
Hello Henning
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
<snip>
? Where in that sentence did i say we had to use X11?
Misunderstood You, thank God ;-) Sorry for misunderstanding You.
Don't worry, however, i think an X11.library would be usefull for some projects, but that might be alot of work and falls outside of this project's goal.
SSH with X11 forwarding is the best thing since sliced bread. And I have sliced bread here ;-)
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
Software Requirements
* glibc 2.1.x or higherWhich isn't available on Windows, either... AFAIK, they use the command line parsing from glibc, i.e. getopt_long...
* gcc: OpenOffice.org has been successfully build under Linuxusing the gcc versions 3.0.x, 3.1.1, 3.2.x, and 3.3.x. Older versions were built with gcc 2.95.2, 2.95 support is not maintained for current branches however. Version 2.96 does not work!
Which version do we have?=
We have the most current one, i.e. 3.4.3
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
We'll definitely not using X.
* PAM (should come with most Linux distributions). You mustinstall the development package for your distribution.
Uhm, this is an interesting dependency.
What sort of dependency is this, anyway ? Are you listing the Linux dependencies, or what ? In this case, this might not be necessary for us.
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org1.1.1, see issue 16626.
Obviously we need some work here, or?
AFAIK, it's not needed if you use some python replacement...
nice :-)
* Perl 5Can also be done, no?
If it needs to be done, yes...
* csh Note that you can start a build in bash however all thescripts in the build system are actually csh scripts.
OO.ops :-) I asked about this the other day. What do we do for build scripts. Anyone? Write a minimal c-shell?
Some of us started this (http://sourceforge.net/projects/abc-shell/) some time ago... It's still some way from being finished, but it somwhat works already...
but the problem is that it uses C shell scripts and they are not compatible with the POSIX shell and Bourne shell scripts :-( But see my other email :-)
* zip and unzipCheck
If everything else would be so simple :/
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then youneed the gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.
Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
Exactly. We don't have no stinking crashes ;)
- Ant Is required to build some features. This is a Java Make
utility.
That's of course a problem... without Java, that is..
Damn, they adopted their own build system (dmake), so why not frigging stick to it ?
lets hope it is only used if people use java
Regards,
Hi Ole-Egil,
Does the OOo source tree have a full set of platforms, like Kaffe? Would we be able to configure and cross-build on an A1 running PPC Linux, producing a build for AOS4?
That way we would have a running system fairly quickly, then we perform the porting, always having a working version, rather than having nothing until it is finished.
cheers
Hi,
Tony Wyatt wrote:
Does the OOo source tree have a full set of platforms, like Kaffe? Would we be able to configure and cross-build on an A1 running PPC Linux, producing a build for AOS4?
Regarding the Linux-hosted cross compiler, we can provide them. We currently have builds for Linux (x86 and PPC) and Windows/cygwin.
Regards,
Hi,
Tony Wyatt wrote:
Does the OOo source tree have a full set of platforms, like Kaffe? Would we be able to configure and cross-build on an A1 running PPC Linux, producing a build for AOS4?
Regarding the Linux-hosted cross compiler, we can provide them. We currently have builds for Linux (x86 and PPC) and Windows/cygwin.
I'd say that's the easiest way until we fully understand the build process. I think ixemul and some sort of sh will be available later, so it might be easier to use the same built tools on AOS4 later (I do not say, utiliye ixemul in the code, but for the tools only).
This is a real problem. Currently one has to maintain 2 makefiles, one for a (sh compatible) cross-target, and one for the native Amiga shell.
I fast x86 can accelerate the built process (unless we have dual G5 power), so cross compilers should be supported (cygwin might have some flaws, especially if we have to port some tools over, linux might run out of the box).
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile:
What specifically do you have in mind ? Perl ? Java ?
Software Requirements
* glibc 2.1.x or higherWell, this is of course not what we're gonna need :-) Do we have a list of what CAN'T be done at the moment with our own C library? Or is there anything?
I just chose the linux dependency page as it would be the one most alike what we need/have.
* gcc: OpenOffice.org has been successfully build under Linuxusing the gcc versions 3.0.x, 3.1.1, 3.2.x, and 3.3.x. Older versions were built with gcc 2.95.2, 2.95 support is not maintained for current branches however. Version 2.96 does not work!
Which version do we have?=
As the page has not been updated for some time, this should be up to date with the compilers available for OS4
* The X11 development libraries and header files should beinstalled. Should be in place with most Linux distributions.
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
Yes, we should not use X11!!!
* PAM (should come with most Linux distributions). You mustinstall the development package for your distribution.
Uhm, this is an interesting dependency.
We don't need this, as the Amiga is a PC (AmigaOS is a single user operating system, so we don't need to support different users).
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org1.1.1, see issue 16626.
Obviously we need some work here, or?
Yes
* If you are building with JDK 1.3.1, you need to downloadcrimson.jar from http://xml.apache.org/crimson/ and xalan.jar and xml-apis.jar from http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/index.html and add these to the compilation classpath
Hopefully doable once we have the above :-)
* Perl 5Can also be done, no?
Should be posible - if not now, then when we have ixemul - have thought about looking at perl5, if no one else is going to
* csh Note that you can start a build in bash however all thescripts in the build system are actually csh scripts.
OO.ops :-) I asked about this the other day. What do we do for build scripts. Anyone? Write a minimal c-shell? I found this: http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/amiga/shells/csh/Csh-5.19.readme But it says it's not script-compatible. Possible to MAKE it script-compatible, or easier to start from scratch? Porting tsch possible? Discuss.
Should be possible when we have ixemul - http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/amiga/ - just found tcsh-6.12.00.lha http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/amiga/tcsh-6.12.00.lha
* zip and unzipCheck
* The gpc general polygon clipper library release 2.31, located athttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/alan/software/. Download and unpack the tarball. You should have the files gpc.c and gpc.h in $SRC_ROOT/external/gpc.
?
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then youneed the gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.
Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
We just need to make it stable ;-)
- Ant Is required to build some features. This is a Java Make utility.
Perl Module requirements
The perl modules will be tested by configure beginning in V2.0. Here is a list of the modules that you can install. Module: Used for: Archive::Zip packing image lists, evtl. for further zipping needs XML::Parser expat based parser for the new XML based build lists
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile:
What specifically do you have in mind ? Perl ? Java ?
Software Requirements
[glibc snipped]
* PAM (should come with most Linux distributions). You must installthe development package for your distribution.
Uhm, this is an interesting dependency.
This shouldn't be that big of a deal to 'fake' if it's absolutely needed, although I'm curious as to what exactly they're using this for?
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org1.1.1, see issue 16626.
Obviously we need some work here, or?
I don't think Java is a runtime dependency (although I used to..) absolutely required,m at least not for Writer.
* If you are building with JDK 1.3.1, you need to downloadcrimson.jar from http://xml.apache.org/crimson/ and xalan.jar and xml-apis.jar from http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/index.html and add these to the compilation classpath
Hopefully doable once we have the above :-)
* Perl 5Can also be done, no?
Anyone know if they use Perl for more than configuration and building? Is there _really_ a runtime perl component? If it's for build or build configuration, we can probably get away with Python...although long-term, not sure what to do there. Perl is pretty portable, but no clue how much so outside of *nix, as it relies pretty heavily on POSIX.
* csh Note that you can start a build in bash however all thescripts in the build system are actually csh scripts.
Ok, so who's the brainchild who thought csh was good for _anything_ ? :-( Sorry, been doing shell forever, and avoid csh like the plague for a number of reasons. It's possible that it might be 'sh' compatible, but just originally written in csh 'because'...?
OO.ops :-) I asked about this the other day. What do we do for build scripts. Anyone? Write a minimal c-shell? I found this: http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/amiga/shells/csh/Csh-5.19.readme But it says it's not script-compatible. Possible to MAKE it script-compatible, or easier to start from scratch? Porting tsch possible? Discuss.
[snipped zip]
* The gpc general polygon clipper library release 2.31, located athttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/alan/software/. Download and unpack the tarball. You should have the files gpc.c and gpc.h in $SRC_ROOT/external/gpc.
?
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then you needthe gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.
Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
Bigtime. GTK would be excellent at some point, but there are enough 'big projects' in this one already. GTK isn't as large a port of say, OO, but it's likely one of the largest libs to do a port of that's out there...
- Ant Is required to build some features. This is a Java Make utility.
Perl Module requirements
The perl modules will be tested by configure beginning in V2.0. Here is a list of the modules that you can install. Module: Used for: Archive::Zip packing image lists, evtl. for further zipping needs XML::Parser expat based parser for the new XML based build lists
Hello Ole-Egil
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile:
What specifically do you have in mind ? Perl ? Java ?
Software Requirements
* glibc 2.1.x or higherWell, this is of course not what we're gonna need :-) Do we have a list of what CAN'T be done at the moment with our own C library? Or is there anything?
We don't have a finished list yet, this is one of the things wich need sorting out ASAP.
* gcc: OpenOffice.org has been successfully build under Linux using the gcc versions 3.0.x, 3.1.1, 3.2.x, and 3.3.x. Olderversions were built with gcc 2.95.2, 2.95 support is not maintained for current branches however. Version 2.96 does not work!
Which version do we have?=
3.4 IIRC on OS4, 2.95.x on OS3.x
* The X11 development libraries and header files should beinstalled. Should be in place with most Linux distributions.
We'll be replacing dependencied on X with intuition/graphics.library, afaik.
X11 might be not the biggest problem, although an X11 lib would be usefull, wasn't GTK required too?
* PAM (should come with most Linux distributions). You must install the development package for your distribution.Uhm, this is an interesting dependency.
I don't know what that's used for in OOo, but we'll find out soon :p
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org 1.1.1, see issue 16626.Obviously we need some work here, or?
Would kaffe be suitable to replace this?
* If you are building with JDK 1.3.1, you need to downloadcrimson.jar from http://xml.apache.org/crimson/ and xalan.jar and xml-apis.jar from http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/index.html and add these to the compilation classpath
Hopefully doable once we have the above :-)
* Perl 5Can also be done, no?
* csh Note that you can start a build in bash however all thescripts in the build system are actually csh scripts.
OO.ops :-) I asked about this the other day. What do we do for build scripts. Anyone? Write a minimal c-shell? I found this: http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/amiga/shells/csh/Csh-5.19.readme But it says it's not script-compatible. Possible to MAKE it script-compatible, or easier to start from scratch? Porting tsch possible? Discuss.
HNL_Dk was working on a bash replacement, but that would probably not be suited
* zip and unzipCheck
* The gpc general polygon clipper library release 2.31, located athttp://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/alan/software/. Download and unpack the tarball. You should have the files gpc.c and gpc.h in $SRC_ROOT/external/gpc.
?
Don't look at me, i suppose this has something to do with OOo Draw (hope i remember the name properly)
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then you need the gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
GTK would be very usefull tho
* Ant Is required to build some features. This is a Java Make utility.Perl Module requirements
The perl modules will be tested by configure beginning in V2.0. Here is a list of the modules that you can install. Module: Used for: Archive::Zip packing image lists, evtl. for further zipping needs XML::Parser expat based parser for the new XML based build lists
Regards
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
3.4 IIRC on OS4, 2.95.x on OS3.x
AFAIK, there's at least a gcc 3.3 for OS3...
X11 might be not the biggest problem, although an X11 lib would be usefull, wasn't GTK required too?
It's not using GTK on Windows, so chances are this isn't required.
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org 1.1.1, see issue 16626.Obviously we need some work here, or?
Would kaffe be suitable to replace this?
Good question... For building OOo, a non-JIT Java VM would probably be enough, and there are plenty of alternatives for that (Kaffe, Sable).
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then you need the gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
GTK would be very usefull tho
We started with that some time ago, but still porting glib 2 (it's using some fork-infested third party software... god, did I mention how I hate this stupid fork, and that it's inventor should be hanged by the testicles ?)
Regards,
On 2005-01-10, Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
3.4 IIRC on OS4, 2.95.x on OS3.x
AFAIK, there's at least a gcc 3.3 for OS3...
There's a 3.4.0 diff in the geekgadgets archive, though, I think it only has c support, don't know how hard it would be to do c++ and whatever there is with it...
Regards,
Jocke 'Zerohero' Birging
Hello Jocke
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
On 2005-01-10, Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
3.4 IIRC on OS4, 2.95.x on OS3.x
AFAIK, there's at least a gcc 3.3 for OS3...
There's a 3.4.0 diff in the geekgadgets archive, though, I think it only has c support, don't know how hard it would be to do c++ and whatever there is with it...
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Regards
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Hello Jocke
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
On 2005-01-10, Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
3.4 IIRC on OS4, 2.95.x on OS3.x
AFAIK, there's at least a gcc 3.3 for OS3...
There's a 3.4.0 diff in the geekgadgets archive, though, I think it only has c support, don't know how hard it would be to do c++ and whatever there is with it...
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
Regards
Hello Henning
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Hello Jocke
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
On 2005-01-10, Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
3.4 IIRC on OS4, 2.95.x on OS3.x
AFAIK, there's at least a gcc 3.3 for OS3...
There's a 3.4.0 diff in the geekgadgets archive, though, I think it only has c support, don't know how hard it would be to do c++ and whatever there is with it...
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I don't see why we couldn't make some of the things work on classic, even if it's not OOo, some of the side dependancies could be usefull.
The more usefull the work we do, the better, no? ;)
Regards
On 2005-01-10, Christophe Ochal wrote:
<SNIP>
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I don't see why we couldn't make some of the things work on classic, even if it's not OOo, some of the side dependancies could be usefull.
There is also the point that as some of us do not have an AmigaONE and/or will be using cross-compilers, the ability to test some sub-projects under OS 3.x can be beneficial.
(Since AmigaOS 3.x is more AmigaOS4-alike than e.g. GNU/Linux)
-Peter aka. Archprogrammer
PS: Keeping up with this mailing list is a part-time job in itself - it seems that every time I get the time to read it, I have another 100 mails to read. But that is hopefully a good sign. :-)
Reality is for people who cannot face ScienceFiction. Only lefthanded people are in their right minds.
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
On 2005-01-10, Christophe Ochal wrote:
<SNIP>
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I don't see why we couldn't make some of the things work on classic, even if it's not OOo, some of the side dependancies could be usefull.
There is also the point that as some of us do not have an AmigaONE and/or will be using cross-compilers, the ability to test some sub-projects under OS 3.x can be beneficial.
hopefully you will soon get an AmigaOne (I was afraid that itwould have been more expensive) :-D
(Since AmigaOS 3.x is more AmigaOS4-alike than e.g. GNU/Linux)
-Peter aka. Archprogrammer
PS: Keeping up with this mailing list is a part-time job in itself - it seems that every time I get the time to read it, I have another 100 mails to read. But that is hopefully a good sign. :-)
lets hope so... While I am trying to install Debian GNU/Linux on my AmigaOne (should have been sleeping long time ago), am I looking (downloading, and looking at the source) at all the OpenSource JavaVM I can find on the web... I have found a few that look interesting (no JIT, but is smaller and faster than kaffe and looks like they are fork-free). Can not prommise anything (as I don't have the time, and we have jAmiga), but I will see if I can spend a few hours on it... when I get Linux and OS4 to work together.
Reality is for people who cannot face ScienceFiction. Only lefthanded people are in their right minds.
Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4
On 2005-01-10, Peter Bengtsson wrote:
<SNIP>
There is also the point that as some of us do not have an AmigaONE
and/or
will be using cross-compilers, the ability to test some sub-projects
under
OS 3.x can be beneficial.
I have an AmigaOne and won't be programming for this project. I'm willing to make it available through VNC if anyone is interested. The machine is online 24/7.
Kind regards, RinceWynd Peter Molenaar
PS: Keeping up with this mailing list is a part-time job in itself - it seems that every time I get the time to read it, I have another 100 mails to read. But that is hopefully a good sign. :-)
;) Yes, so true :-P You're not the only one, hehe.
Can we introduce some ML styles here ? Like, quote only things you really want to respond to and change the subject line if the message changes it's contents substantially ? I mean, that alone makes it much easier to catch up.
And...keeping the noice a bit down (argh...I didn't say that)...;)
cheers Jürgen
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
There is also the point that as some of us do not have an AmigaONE and/or will be using cross-compilers, the ability to test some sub-projects under OS 3.x can be beneficial.
Peter, i am not a developer and my A1 is not used for anything REALLY necessary, if you would like i could offer you my motherboard including the G3@800 processor/memory module in exchange for your help with this project. (a good excuse for me to buy a micro eventually :-) If you are interested pm me your address through AW.net (Nick: Step) or send a mail to stefan.lindqvist@sweportal.se
Hello Stefan
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
There is also the point that as some of us do not have an AmigaONE and/or will be using cross-compilers, the ability to test some sub-projects under OS 3.x can be beneficial.
Peter, i am not a developer and my A1 is not used for anything REALLY necessary, if you would like i could offer you my motherboard including the G3@800 processor/memory module in exchange for your help with this project. (a good excuse for me to buy a micro eventually :-) If you are interested pm me your address through AW.net (Nick: Step) or send a mail to stefan.lindqvist@sweportal.se
You're giving him your A1?! Wow
Regards
Hello Stefan
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
There is also the point that as some of us do not have an AmigaONE and/or will be using cross-compilers, the ability to test some sub-projects under OS 3.x can be beneficial.
Peter, i am not a developer and my A1 is not used for anything REALLY necessary, if you would like i could offer you my motherboard including the G3@800 processor/memory module in exchange for your help with this project. (a good excuse for me to buy a micro eventually :-) If you are interested pm me your address through AW.net (Nick: Step) or send a mail to stefan.lindqvist@sweportal.se
Wow, hey can send an email there too and get an A1 at my door? I'm good at sending email...LOL...really...
On 2005-01-11, Stefan Lindqvist wrote:
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
<SNIP>
Peter, i am not a developer and my A1 is not used for anything REALLY necessary, if you would like i could offer you my motherboard including the G3@800 processor/memory module in exchange for your help with this project. (a good excuse for me to buy a micro eventually :-) If you are interested pm me your address through AW.net (Nick: Step) or send a mail to stefan.lindqvist@sweportal.se
I wrote you aprivate e-mail, but would also like to write a public Wow! and Thank you! in addition to *stunned silence*
-Peter aka. Archprogrammer
PS: What a sneaky way to make me feel obliged to contribute more. :-)
Reality is for people who cannot face ScienceFiction. Only lefthanded people are in their right minds.
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I don't see an overwhelming need for a classic version, either. I highly doubt that anyobdy can run OOo on a classic...
Regards,
Hello Thomas
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I don't see an overwhelming need for a classic version, either. I highly doubt that anyobdy can run OOo on a classic...
True, but some things might be usefull, i'm not saying we should do it, but if someone wants to do it, why not?
Regards
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I was thinking about that, too. IMO it doesn't make sence to support the 68k (for technical and political reasons). But that's just my opinion. Do we have to define a target here ? Are we strictly talking about AOS4 (which is/was my impression, and I'd go for it), or are people on the list more open to other suggestions ?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jürgen Schober" juergen.schober@pointdesign.at To: openoffice-os4@samfundet.no Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:06 AM Subject: [OO.org-OS4] Platform Targets ? (was: Re: Pre-organisatorial note)
I was thinking about that, too. IMO it doesn't make sence to support the 68k (for technical and political reasons). But that's just my opinion. Do we have to define a target here ? Are we strictly talking about AOS4 (which is/was my impression, and I'd go for it), or are people on the list more open to other suggestions ?
From the technical aspect and the scale of the project, I would say one
target is enough (at least until something is running)...I guess we'll contribute the code anyway, so it will be ported to other AOS clones anyway, eventually.
For the record, support for OS 3.X was mentionned, but nothing below OS 3.X.
Hello stephane
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jürgen Schober" juergen.schober@pointdesign.at To: openoffice-os4@samfundet.no Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:06 AM Subject: [OO.org-OS4] Platform Targets ? (was: Re: Pre-organisatorial note)
I was thinking about that, too. IMO it doesn't make sence to support the 68k (for technical and political reasons). But that's just my opinion. Do we have to define a target here ? Are we strictly talking about AOS4 (which is/was my impression, and I'd go for it), or are people on the list more open to other suggestions ?
From the technical aspect and the scale of the project, I would say one
target is enough (at least until something is running)...I guess we'll
contribute the code anyway, so it will be ported to other AOS clones anyway, eventually.
For the record, support for OS 3.X was mentionned, but nothing below OS 3.X.
I mentioned it, because some tools/dependencies would make sense on 68k aswell, OOo however, is probably to big for 68k to handle.
Regards
Hi Jürgen,
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
I was thinking about that, too. IMO it doesn't make sence to support the 68k (for technical and political reasons). But that's just my opinion. Do we have to define a target here ? Are we strictly talking about AOS4 (which is/was my impression, and I'd go for it), or are people on the list more open to other suggestions ?
It may turn out to be like the OS4 development - it made sense to build for the 68k platform first, allowing progress to be made, before they were able to move over to the PPC hardware when it became available. It may be the same with OOo, since not everyone has an A1, but I prefer to think that Linux PPC will be the first target.
cheers
Hi !
Tony Wyatt wrote:
It may turn out to be like the OS4 development - it made sense to build for the 68k platform first, allowing progress to be made, before they were able to move over to the PPC hardware when it became available. It may be the same with OOo, since not everyone has an A1, but I prefer to think that Linux PPC will be the first target.
That's a totally different thing. OS 4 development had to be started on 68k first simply because the PPc kernel (ExecSG) had to be developed first. Now we may face the fact that some developers don't have an A1 but that's surely no showstopper for starting on OS 4 directly. Doing a 68k version first may please the Amithlon and MOS users (It won't work on a classic, believe me ;-)) but apart from that doesn't gain anything. The team would have to port the stuff over afterwards and there's also a big danger that new features and the stricter rules of OS 4 are not used, i.e. less quality with more work.
regards
Alexander Lohrmann
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:06:07 +0100 (CET), =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Schober?= juergen.schober@pointdesign.at wrote:
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I was thinking about that, too. IMO it doesn't make sence to support the 68k (for technical and political reasons). But that's just my opinion. Do we have to define a target here ? Are we strictly talking about AOS4 (which is/was my impression, and I'd go for it), or are people on the list more open to other suggestions ?
I agree. 68K had its time and I'm sure how this suite would work on anything put a very expanded system. While it would be nice to have it on AOS 3.x or even AROS, we should just stick to an OS 4 port. Not to mention , Keep It Simple Stupid. Which should be in the project mission statement.
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Because 2.95.3 sucks at C++ ?
Regards,
Hello Thomas
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Because 2.95.3 sucks at C++ ?
That's a good reason :P
Regards
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Christophe Ochal wrote:
3.4 IIRC on OS4, 2.95.x on OS3.x
AFAIK, there's at least a gcc 3.3 for OS3...
there is also 3.4.0, I have used that one since it got released, and without any trouble!
X11 might be not the biggest problem, although an X11 lib would be usefull, wasn't GTK required too?
It's not using GTK on Windows, so chances are this isn't required.
It is not required, but the last time I had a look at OOo did GNU/Linux use GTK for accessibility, where Windows used Java for the same. IIRC was that the only thing GTK and Java was used for.
* JDK 1.3.1 or JDK 1.4.1 (note you need the SDK, not just the JRE). JDK 1.4.2 is not supported for versions prior to OpenOffice.org 1.1.1, see issue 16626.Obviously we need some work here, or?
Would kaffe be suitable to replace this?
Good question... For building OOo, a non-JIT Java VM would probably be enough, and there are plenty of alternatives for that (Kaffe, Sable).
* GTK - If you enable the crash reporter in configure then you need the gtk 2, jpeg and tiff development libraries.Ok, so fuck the crash reporter :-P
GTK would be very usefull tho
We started with that some time ago, but still porting glib 2 (it's using some fork-infested third party software... god, did I mention how I hate this stupid fork, and that it's inventor should be hanged by the testicles ?)
Heard
Regards,
Hi Thomas,
On 10/01/2005, you wrote:
Good question... For building OOo, a non-JIT Java VM would probably be enough, and there are plenty of alternatives for that (Kaffe, Sable).
On most supported platforms, Kaffe offers a choice of JITs, also.
If we start with PPC Linux as a build platform, we would have all of these tools available, and could cross-compile for PPC OS4 while porting the rest of the tools required for stand-alone support.
cheers
Hi,
Tony Wyatt wrote:
On most supported platforms, Kaffe offers a choice of JITs, also.
Just not on PPC...
Regards,
Hi Thomas,
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
On most supported platforms, Kaffe offers a choice of JITs, also.
Just not on PPC...
That's right. Timothy Stack has been working on a PPC JIT, and I was intending to help, until I "got distracted" ;-)
BTW, have you tried the 68k pdksh with the native ixemul?
cheers
Tony Wyatt wrote:
BTW, have you tried the 68k pdksh with the native ixemul?
In this case pdksh wouldn't help, as OO.org is using csh build scripts. Csh is considered harmful by almost every who doesn't work at Sun, and it isn't script-compatible with any POSIX shell :-(
pdksh would be SO VERY, VERY NICE to have for all the dependencies, though. And all other things that are useful for porting in general :-)
Ole-Egil
Hi Ole-Egil,
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
BTW, have you tried the 68k pdksh with the native ixemul?
In this case pdksh wouldn't help, as OO.org is using csh build scripts. Csh is considered harmful by almost every who doesn't work at Sun, and it isn't script-compatible with any POSIX shell :-(
pdksh would be SO VERY, VERY NICE to have for all the dependencies, though. And all other things that are useful for porting in general :-)
When I was playing with Kaffe and ixemul, the GG installation had only pdksh, but that was enough to build and run Kaffe. The configure, make and Kaffe scripts called for "sh", but pdksh seemed to do the job. I had to make a few syntax changes to the make files, but nothing serious.
cheers
Tony Wyatt wrote:
Hi Ole-Egil,
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
BTW, have you tried the 68k pdksh with the native ixemul?
In this case pdksh wouldn't help, as OO.org is using csh build scripts. Csh is considered harmful by almost every who doesn't work at Sun, and it isn't script-compatible with any POSIX shell :-(
pdksh would be SO VERY, VERY NICE to have for all the dependencies, though. And all other things that are useful for porting in general :-)
When I was playing with Kaffe and ixemul, the GG installation had only pdksh, but that was enough to build and run Kaffe. The configure, make and Kaffe scripts called for "sh", but pdksh seemed to do the job. I had to make a few syntax changes to the make files, but nothing serious.
Well, the application "pdksh" provides the _service_ "sh" (it is more or less bourne compatible). "pdksh" does NOT provide the service "csh", as that is a COMPLETELY different syntax from "sh". the applications "tcsh" and "csh" provides the service "csh".
It's very common for unix applications to have this kind of relationship, where several applications have compatible arguments and syntax. Or at least do the same thing :-)
Under Linux, you can choose which of your shells are symlinked into /bin/sh, be it bash, ksh, dash etc. I just wouldn't want anyone to symlink /bin/sh to point to /bin/csh... Ouch ;-)
Ole-Egil
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
Tony Wyatt wrote:
Hi Ole-Egil,
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
BTW, have you tried the 68k pdksh with the native ixemul?
In this case pdksh wouldn't help, as OO.org is using csh build scripts. Csh is considered harmful by almost every who doesn't work at Sun, and it isn't script-compatible with any POSIX shell :-(
pdksh would be SO VERY, VERY NICE to have for all the dependencies, though. And all other things that are useful for porting in general :-)
When I was playing with Kaffe and ixemul, the GG installation had only pdksh, but that was enough to build and run Kaffe. The configure, make and Kaffe scripts called for "sh", but pdksh seemed to do the job. I had to make a few syntax changes to the make files, but nothing serious.
Well, the application "pdksh" provides the _service_ "sh" (it is more or less bourne compatible). "pdksh" does NOT provide the service "csh", as that is a COMPLETELY different syntax from "sh". the applications "tcsh" and "csh" provides the service "csh".
It's very common for unix applications to have this kind of relationship, where several applications have compatible arguments and syntax. Or at least do the same thing :-)
Under Linux, you can choose which of your shells are symlinked into /bin/sh, be it bash, ksh, dash etc. I just wouldn't want anyone to symlink /bin/sh to point to /bin/csh... Ouch ;-)
Ole-Egil
would something like this do:
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/util/shell/csh550src.readme
or this
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/dev/gg/tcsh-6.12.00-s.readme
be able to do it (not sure if the csh works under emulation, but it appears to be native and so may be easier to port)
Mark
Mark bond wrote:
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
Tony Wyatt wrote:
Hi Ole-Egil,
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
BTW, have you tried the 68k pdksh with the native ixemul?
In this case pdksh wouldn't help, as OO.org is using csh build scripts. Csh is considered harmful by almost every who doesn't work at Sun, and it isn't script-compatible with any POSIX shell :-(
pdksh would be SO VERY, VERY NICE to have for all the dependencies, though. And all other things that are useful for porting in general :-)
When I was playing with Kaffe and ixemul, the GG installation had only pdksh, but that was enough to build and run Kaffe. The configure, make and Kaffe scripts called for "sh", but pdksh seemed to do the job. I had to make a few syntax changes to the make files, but nothing serious.
Well, the application "pdksh" provides the _service_ "sh" (it is more or less bourne compatible). "pdksh" does NOT provide the service "csh", as that is a COMPLETELY different syntax from "sh". the applications "tcsh" and "csh" provides the service "csh".
It's very common for unix applications to have this kind of relationship, where several applications have compatible arguments and syntax. Or at least do the same thing :-)
Under Linux, you can choose which of your shells are symlinked into /bin/sh, be it bash, ksh, dash etc. I just wouldn't want anyone to symlink /bin/sh to point to /bin/csh... Ouch ;-)
Ole-Egil
would something like this do:
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/util/shell/csh550src.readme
or this
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/dev/gg/tcsh-6.12.00-s.readme
be able to do it (not sure if the csh works under emulation, but it appears to be native and so may be easier to port)
I have looked at how amiga.sf.net has compiled tcsh... They just used the Amiga config file, so that is all that we need to do ( but it does need ixemul )... but as our abc-shell needs something like "unixpath" will this shell also need it. Else will we need to change every script!
Mark
Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
I have looked at how amiga.sf.net has compiled tcsh... They just used the Amiga config file, so that is all that we need to do ( but it does need ixemul )... but as our abc-shell needs something like "unixpath" will this shell also need it. Else will we need to change every script!
The whole point here is to avoid changing all the paths in the scripts, otherwise we could just rewrite them into AmigaDOS scripts when we're at it ;-)
But if amiga.sf.net has a version for OS3.9 then we're at least good to go for cross-development from both 3.9, Linux and Windows. We're slowly getting there :-)
Ole-Egil
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
would something like this do:
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/util/shell/csh550src.readme
or this
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/dev/gg/tcsh-6.12.00-s.readme
be able to do it (not sure if the csh works under emulation, but it appears to be native and so may be easier to port)
I have looked at how amiga.sf.net has compiled tcsh... They just used the Amiga config file, so that is all that we need to do ( but it does need ixemul )... but as our abc-shell needs something like "unixpath" will this shell also need it. Else will we need to change every script!
Mark
The csh shell doesnt appear to need ixemul, and so may be more appropriate?
Mark
Mark bond wrote:
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
would something like this do:
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/util/shell/csh550src.readme
or this
http://ftp.plig.org/pub/aminet/dev/gg/tcsh-6.12.00-s.readme
be able to do it (not sure if the csh works under emulation, but it appears to be native and so may be easier to port)
I have looked at how amiga.sf.net has compiled tcsh... They just used the Amiga config file, so that is all that we need to do ( but it does need ixemul )... but as our abc-shell needs something like "unixpath" will this shell also need it. Else will we need to change every script!
Mark
The csh shell doesnt appear to need ixemul, and so may be more appropriate?
Nice :-)
Mark
Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4
Tony Wyatt wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
On most supported platforms, Kaffe offers a choice of JITs, also.
Just not on PPC...
That's right. Timothy Stack has been working on a PPC JIT, and I was intending to help, until I "got distracted" ;-)
BTW, have you tried the 68k pdksh with the native ixemul?
The biggest problem is that we need something like "Unixdirs" to make us use unix-like pathnames.
cheers
Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile:
What specifically do you have in mind ? Perl ? Java ?
Have re-thought my "statement", see teh reply to Ole-Egil
Regards,
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
Quick note,
Before we get _too_ organised, I would like to insert a quick note. A number of messages back someone suggested we divide the OOo source into subprojects, but before we do this we probably ought to look at the dependencies. If OOo requires Neon, then "Neon" is probably a good subproject to begin with, not "OOo WebDAV".
Some usefull information - looks like we will need to crosscompile: http://porting.openoffice.org/porting_overview.html
http://porting.openoffice.org/porting_doclinks.html
http://tools.openoffice.org/dev_docs/build_linux.html#BuildRequirements
looking at this page, it looks like we will need nspr (Netscape Portable Runtime) - or what should NP_SDK refer to?
Some things like might be ported, other replaced, but all in all the best subproject to begin with might be "OOo dependencies".
Oh, and my AW nick is "Tesla" (unobviously :).
-Peter aka. Archprogrammer
Reality is for people who cannot face ScienceFiction. Only lefthanded people are in their right minds.
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
looking at this page, it looks like we will need nspr (Netscape Portable Runtime) - or what should NP_SDK refer to?
There are some Mozilla dependencies in there, yes. How much I'm not sure of yet.
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
looking at this page, it looks like we will need nspr (Netscape Portable Runtime) - or what should NP_SDK refer to?
There are some Mozilla dependencies in there, yes. How much I'm not sure of yet.
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
Olly Hodgson wrote:
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
looking at this page, it looks like we will need nspr (Netscape Portable Runtime) - or what should NP_SDK refer to?
There are some Mozilla dependencies in there, yes. How much I'm not sure of yet.
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
I think it would be a good thing first to get in contact with OOo, as the website does say that there is one specific version of nspr that can be used... it would be good to know if it only runs on the old version, or if the website has not been updated.
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
BTW: I think we have a lot of people here... But anyway, I mean, both, OOo and Mozilla (or Firefox) would be really cool. So, what if some extend this project to support Amizilla, as well ? Or at least we define some sort of cooperation ?
Jürgen Schober wrote:
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
BTW: I think we have a lot of people here... But anyway, I mean, both, OOo and Mozilla (or Firefox) would be really cool. So, what if some extend this project to support Amizilla, as well ? Or at least we define some sort of cooperation ?
I am also on the amizilla list and active in documenting how to setup all needed tools for configure and compiling amizilla. And thats one point of cooperation! Actually many open source tools uses avrious toosl from unix, like a unxi shell with sh scripts, ...
I thinks in combining the effort to provide this tools fro OS4 and document how to setup up them to get up and running is fisrt step needed to be done. And this would benefit OO and Mozilla.
Max
Max Larsson wrote:
Jürgen Schober wrote:
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
BTW: I think we have a lot of people here... But anyway, I mean, both, OOo and Mozilla (or Firefox) would be really cool. So, what if some extend this project to support Amizilla, as well ? Or at least we define some sort of cooperation ?
I am also on the amizilla list and active in documenting how to setup all needed tools for configure and compiling amizilla. And thats one point of cooperation! Actually many open source tools uses avrious toosl from unix, like a unxi shell with sh scripts, ...
I thinks in combining the effort to provide this tools fro OS4 and document how to setup up them to get up and running is fisrt step needed to be done. And this would benefit OO and Mozilla.
Max
This (documenting the build environment and tools chain) would be useful, not only for the AOO group, but for anyone new coming into the AOO group. (This is also a good wiki candidate as it can be updated painlessly that way)
Scott
Scott W wrote:
Max Larsson wrote:
Jürgen Schober wrote:
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
BTW: I think we have a lot of people here... But anyway, I mean, both, OOo and Mozilla (or Firefox) would be really cool. So, what if some extend this project to support Amizilla, as well ? Or at least we define some sort of cooperation ?
I am also on the amizilla list and active in documenting how to setup all needed tools for configure and compiling amizilla. And thats one point of cooperation! Actually many open source tools uses avrious toosl from unix, like a unxi shell with sh scripts, ...
I thinks in combining the effort to provide this tools fro OS4 and document how to setup up them to get up and running is fisrt step needed to be done. And this would benefit OO and Mozilla.
Max
This (documenting the build environment and tools chain) would be useful, not only for the AOO group, but for anyone new coming into the AOO group. (This is also a good wiki candidate as it can be updated painlessly that way)
Yes, i strarted document for OS3.1? OS3.9 standalone or under UAE. It is at the moment on the amizilla.sourceforge.net website. If you like you can add it into the wiki if it is already running.
Max
Hello Jürgen
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
BTW: I think we have a lot of people here... But anyway, I mean, both, OOo and Mozilla (or Firefox) would be really cool. So, what if some extend this project to support Amizilla, as well ? Or at least we define some sort of cooperation ?
I wouln't mind, if there's common code between both, why not?
Regards
Le 11/01/2005, Jürgen Schober a écrit :
Its probably a good idea to get in touch with Jeff Shepherd over at the Amizilla project then (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amizilla/), considering just how much work he's done to bring NSPR to AmigaOS 3.x. I'm not sure how much of his work will be compatible with OS4, but its got to be a good start.
BTW: I think we have a lot of people here... But anyway, I mean, both, OOo and Mozilla (or Firefox) would be really cool. So, what if some extend this project to support Amizilla, as well ? Or at least we define some sort of cooperation ?
One thing at a time, Jürgen me old son. Otherwise this list will just be like the revolutionaries in "Life of Brian"...
Salutations
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
There are some Mozilla dependencies in there, yes. How much I'm not sure of yet.
Depending on what exactly *is* required, I am able to supply them in OS4-Native form. This includes most of the utilities that are contained in the Mozilla/NSPR/XPCOM and friends devkit.
Regards,
Hans-Joerg Frieden wrote:
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:
There are some Mozilla dependencies in there, yes. How much I'm not sure of yet.
Depending on what exactly *is* required, I am able to supply them in OS4-Native form. This includes most of the utilities that are contained in the Mozilla/NSPR/XPCOM and friends devkit.
lets hope that it can be used :-D
Regards,
-
Alexander Lohrmann -
Andy Hall -
Bond Seran -
Chris Fraser -
Christophe Ochal -
Hans-Joerg Frieden -
Henning Nielsen Lund -
Jocke Birging -
Jürgen Schober -
Mark bond
-
Max Larsson -
Ole-Egil Hvitmyren -
olegil＠samfundet.no
-
Olly Hodgson -
Peter Bengtsson -
Peter Molenaar -
Rose Humphrey -
Scott W -
Stefan Lindqvist -
stephane richard -
Thomas Frieden -
Tony Wyatt