[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts
From: |
Shaun Tancheff |
Subject: |
RE: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts |
Date: |
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:26:49 -0600 |
> Paul Edwards wrote:
> "Derek Robert Price" <derek@ximbiot.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.2878.1067607774.21628.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> > |>CVS can still be compiled on Windows under CygWin using
> GCC or under
> > |>MSVC.
> > |
> > |Really? Is that just missing from the Windows/NT README
> then? Do you
> > |know what the procedure for compiling is?
> >
> > There are already notes in INSTALL & in windows-NT/README about
> > compiling with MSVC (Microsoft Visual C++). I just assumed that
> > people
>
> I just assumed from those notes that that was the only C
> compiler supported for Windows. :-( :-)
>
> > would know that the CygWin procedure was the same as the UNIX
> > procedure, as that is one of CygWin's design goals. It
> might deserve
> > a note or two that it works.
For one, cygwin *ships* a pre-built CVS.
For two, don't bother trying until you have *at least* all of
the development tools, including the typical gnu environment.
For three, everything in cygwin is built out side the source
tree:
# tar xzvf cvs-1.11.x.tar.gz
# mkdir cvs
# cd cvs
# ../cvs-1.11.x/configure
# make
# make test
# make install
> I have the Cygwin compiler, I don't know that I have any of
> the other stuff.
>
> I know I can compile C programs using the GCC compiler that
> came with Cygwin.
>
> The Unix procedure is to go ./configure.
>
> Even though I have the cygwin compiler, I can't run
> ./configure, because I am in a DOS shell. I can run a batch
> file though.
>
> However, it just so happens that I happen to have bash
> installed too. But when I go
>
> "./configure"
>
> it says "no such command" or somesuch
>
> But I just had a brainwave.
>
> I typed in "sh ./configure" and then it all started up.
>
> However, I notice that there are a lot of cases of
> "File not found" etc.
>
> > |>We can't fix bugs and inconsistencies without bug reports and bug
> > |>reports can be hard to verify without exact hardware and software
> > |>combinations.
> > |>
> > |>If you'd like to buy me the computers w/your desired operating
> > |>systems and pay for my time, I'd be happy to set up
> nightly testing
> > |>on whatever platforms you like.
> > |
> > |The platform is an arbitrary and unspecified platform that is 100%
> > |ISO C conforming and 100% Posix library conforming.
> > |
> > |It doesn't have any Unix-like shell.
> > |
> > |So long as the application itself conforms to the two applicable
> > |standards, it should compile out of the box. At least each source
> > |file should compile anyway (in the same way that a "hello, world"
> > |program will compile). I don't mind writing a batch file
> to compile
> > |each source file in turn and then linking it at the end.
> >
> > Obviously we've never encountered such a platform before, but you
> > bring
>
> This platform is fully described in the POSIX.1 standard
> and in the C89 standard.
>
> > up an interesting point. Compiling is now mostly dependant
> on running
> > configure to set the variables, but the code could be
> designed to be
> > more biased towards POSIX - so that it would compile
> _without_ running
> > configure on a pure POSIX system.
>
> Yes, correct. That's exactly what I expect as part of
> portability, not a shell script which doesn't conform to
> either C89 nor POSIX.1. C is meant to be the portable
> language, not shell script!!! C does in fact go a long way
> towards portability. But shell scripts completely obliterate
> that progress!
>
> I would expect something like rcs to compile on any C89
> platform. Just by typing in "bcc" or "wcl" or any of the
> hundreds of 100% ISO conforming compilers.
>
> I would expect CVS, since it is not really practical to make
> it C89 compliant, but it is practical to make it Posix
> compliant, since the only thing that CVS should need beyond
> C89 is directory operations. At least to work locally.
>
> Yuck! Bash has just reported to me that it needs a default
> text editor. No it shouldn't! I don't mind if CVS gives me
> an error when I do a commit, saying "-m is mandatory on your
> system", but I do mind when it requires me to have some
> callable editor. This is another thing that takes away the
> portability.
>
> > configure has always worked fine for me, so I'd never really
> > considered it, but it is certainly an interesting concept.
> Feel free
> > to submit patches!
>
> Ok, I will see if I can submit a config.h that basically
> deletes anything that is not POSIX.
>
> > As a workaround, the config.h in the EMX subdirectory might get you
> > most of what you want, since that is basically what
> configure creates
> > under UNIX.
>
> When I realised the EMX directory existed, I tried using
> that, by copying it into multiple directories (the
> instructions were not correct), but that still didn't work,
> complaining about fnmatch.h or something.
Afaik the latest emx (1.11.2.x) was from the emx-new directory.
But like I said before I treated EMX synonmous with OS/2 so there
is probably some OS/2 calls that need to be modified for DOS.
If that works, making a 1.11.2 to 1.11.9 patch should be relativly
trivial. (The 1.10.6 -> 1.11.2 was).
> > Alternatively, you could run configure on some platform that will
> > enable most of the POSIX compliant functions, like Linux, and start
> > with the config.h that that generates. There should be
> less to edit
> > that way.
> >
> > If EMX is really 100% POSIX compliant these days, you might
> be able to
> > get away without using most or all of the rest of the code
> in the emx
> > directory if you set up config.h correctly.
>
> Ok, I'll see how I go.
>
> Thanks for at least raising the possibility that CVS might
> actually compile on my "rare" Win 98 + gcc system. I must
> say I thought it quite strange that gcc did not appear to be
> supported under Win 98 for CVS.
>
> BFN. Paul.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-cvs mailing list
> Bug-cvs@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
>
>
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, (continued)
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Mark D. Baushke, 2003/10/30
- Message not available
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Paul Edwards, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/30
- Message not available
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Paul Edwards, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Larry Jones, 2003/10/30
- RE: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Shaun Tancheff, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/31
- Message not available
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Paul Edwards, 2003/10/31
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/31
- RE: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts,
Shaun Tancheff <=
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/31
- Message not available
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Paul Edwards, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Larry Jones, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/29
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Mihai Bazon, 2003/10/30
- Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Derek Robert Price, 2003/10/30
Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Paul Edwards, 2003/10/31
Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Paul Edwards, 2003/10/31
Re: different CVS_SERVER for different hosts, Paul Edwards, 2003/10/31