[Top][All Lists]

[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" <address@hidden> wrote in message 
> news:address@hidden
> > |>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 

# 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
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]