HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
Subject: Making Mach build with non-CMU tools (suggestions)
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:28:51 GMT
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway

I am working on porting the Mach 3.0 OS microkernel to a locally
designed machine.

The *big* problem I faced was configuring and building the system.
Mach needs its own special tools, in particular a heavily modified
Make program that you need a BSD license to be allowed to fetch and
compile.

At first I thought that this was a trivial problem. After reading what
documentation there is, and reading through some of the Makefiles, I
decided that this was definitely *not* the case. The Makefiles are
very complex, the Mach configuration stuff I don't understand yet, and
so on...

One of the files in the docs/notes directory of mach.cs.cmu.edu
mentions that the Mach people at CMU are working on moving the
Makefiles over to a format usable by a freely available Make (The OSF
ODE Make based on the BSD-Reno Make from the). This work has been put
on low priority pending a favorable settlement of the BNR-2 lawsuit.

I am not alone in having this problem. It is a problem for everybody
who is trying to work with the Mach code without having a BSD source
license. It also has to be a problem for the FSF. They would seem to
need an OS kernel that can be configured and compiled without a BSD
license.

I am aware of the GNUMach source. I have noted, however, that the
changes to the Makefiles have not been merged into the CMU Mach
release, which makes me suspect that this is a quick hack to get the
stuff to compile. In addition this version of the microkernel is MK68,
while the current release is MK78 (I think), which makes me suspect
that changing the Makefiles is enough of a job that it is difficult to
keep in sync with the releases from CMU.

I have the following suggestions to remedy this problem:

 1. Change GNU Make to support the same facilities as CMU Make
 2. Do the changes necessary to the CMU Makefiles to make them work
    with the ODE Make (or the GNU Make for that matter), and nicely
    ask CMU to start using these Makefiles in their distribution.

Suggestion 2 is the most desirable solution. It is however a biiig
job. It is not "fun" enough that anyone ever is likely to sit down and
do it for free, which means that some company or organization will
have to pay someone to do the work.

The question: is who is going to do it? CMU don't have any incentives
for the time being. OSF? FSF? I don't know.

- Steinar
From: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GNU ld for AIX 3.2 (RS6000)?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:20:22 GMT
Organization: ICEM Systems, Inc.

The subject say it all.

I've pulled down the GNU binutils 2.0 and there doesn't seem to be
an RS6000 configuration (rs6000.sh, rs6000.x, etc) for GNU ld.

Does anyone have the needed files to make GNU ld read and *write*
AIX3.2 xcoff files?  Or failing that, does anyone know how to 
make IBM's ld create an executable with a TOC > 65535?
-- 
#include <std.disclaimer>
#define FULL_NAME                          "Paul Dokas"
#define EMAIL                              "pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
/* we are realizing infinite possibilities in exchange for our soul */
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod)
Subject: Re: Don't know how to generate an index file from a texinfo source
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:42:01 GMT
Organization: TU Darmstadt
Keywords: index, texinfo

In article <1992Sep29.165346.16017@cenaath.cena.dgac.fr>, melennec@stna.dgac.fr (Ronan Melennec STNA 7C p8240 BD22) writes:
> 
> I'm using Bison (1.18) and I would like to print its manual.
> Everything prints fine except the index, which remains empty.
> 
> Do I have to use makeindex or a similar tool ?

You need texindex. It's part of the texinfo package (actually,
texinfo-2.15.tar.Z).

After you compiled and installed it, use it with
	tex bison.texinfo
	texindex bison.??
	tex bison.texinfo
	tex bison.texinfo

Btw, bison was just updated to 1.19. Perhaps you want to print the
current manual ;-)

And since you're in Europe, you might want to fetch the stuff from a
European GNU mirror. (Eg, ftp.th-darmstadt.de:pub/gnu)

--
Joachim

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod			Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:17:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.193435.12355@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>
>See point one. In the case of Mac emulator on Amiga it is still cheaper
>to buy A500 and Mac emulator than Mac Plus. And it runs faster (graphics)
>and have much larger screen.
>
>Not every Apple Macintosh can do everything what Apple Macintosh can.
>These do all what Mac Plus does (they take Mac Plus ROMs).
>


Whoopee.  Accelerate that creaking 1986 technology.  Love that 24-bit
addressing, no Color QuickDraw, max 4MB of RAM, no sound chip machine.
Emulating a Mac Plus is about as interesting as building a 286-based
PC clone.


-- 
Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)
From: cek@sdc.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: building gnu make on AIX 3.2, HP/UX 8.7?
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:10:41 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, WA

I'm faced with the task of building gnu make (3.62) on both
AIX 3.2 (RS6000) and HP/UX 8.7 (HP9000).  If anyone has already
done this I'd very much appreciate knowing what it took
(which #define-s to use, any patches needed, etc.)

--
Conrad Kimball		| Unix Server Tech Services, Boeing Computer Services
cek@sdc.boeing.com	| P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35
(206) 865-6410		| Seattle, WA  98124-0346
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: "John Morey" <p00103@mail.psi.net>
Subject: Need info on CVS/RCS
Organization: Hitachi Telecom
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:20:48 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.11)

I was wondering if there is a book on using CVS/RCS.  We are looking at 
getting off of our mainframe and using workstations for our development 
so we will have to replace our source control system.  I have seen a book
on using SCCS for source control but from what I read CVS/RCS would be a
better choice.  I have not been able to find any info, other than the
Man pages that come with them, on how to use CVS/RCS to control a very large
amount of source. 
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: exby@pogo.Colorado.EDU (|J| Exby)
Subject: screen in 132 mode?
Keywords: screen termcap
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:34:58 GMT


I am currently running  a  GNU utility called
screen v 3.02  on a HP9000/822s  with HPUX 8.02.  "screen" allows
me to have "multiple sessions" eventhough I am wried directly
to an HP serial port with a dumb vt100 terminal..etc...

My terminal is emulating vt100, as some software requires, and
works find under screen EXCEPT, screen doesn't allow standard
vt100 "escape" sequences through  to my terminal so I can
go into 132column mode, for display of reports etc.
a shellscript such as:

echo "[?3h[?4l[?7h\c"

SHOULD put my screen in 132col mode, which it does when I am not
running "screen", but nothing happens when these ESC codes are
echoed when I am running screen.

Is there something I can change within the "termcap" for screen
to allow me to go into 132col mode, if so where and what do I put in?
I am not a termcap wizard but am competant unix person nonetheless.  :-)
please, any advice and help is greatly appreciated.  I am stumpoed.


 "This is a formica table."   -LMFAP
.....................................
-=====-                        -=====-
  -=-   exby@pogo.Colorado.EDU   -=-
   -                              -


Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
From: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: OSU Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:00:41 GMT

In article <BvIGCM.Ixs@rice.edu> jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.193435.12355@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>>
>>See point one. In the case of Mac emulator on Amiga it is still cheaper
>>to buy A500 and Mac emulator than Mac Plus. And it runs faster (graphics)
>>and have much larger screen.
>>
>>Not every Apple Macintosh can do everything what Apple Macintosh can.
>>These do all what Mac Plus does (they take Mac Plus ROMs).
>>
>
>
>Whoopee.  Accelerate that creaking 1986 technology.  Love that 24-bit
>addressing, no Color QuickDraw, max 4MB of RAM, no sound chip machine.
>Emulating a Mac Plus is about as interesting as building a 286-based
>PC clone.

This is really interesting. First I hear from many people that Mac
is a viable platform even in b/w (color is available for the Mac for
not so long) and then I hear that this machine is not worth anything.
When I am supposed to buy a Mac for one of the officers and she
wants b/w, should I get her color? No. She wants b/w and I will get
it for her, even if someone thinks it is not interesting. She is
supposed to work on it. She is not interested in the interesting
computer.

All advocates of Mac who claim that b/w Mac is not an appropriate
Mac, should face the fact that disregarding them would cut the number
of considered Macs (here color ones) down to the number of Amigas. 
Thus they would not have the advantage of a sheer number
of boxes over them. What advantage would be left then?

>Jim Wong (jimwong@owlnet.rice.edu)

Dariusz Bolski
-- 
Dariusz Bolski     Ohio Supercomputer Center, IBM POWER Visualization System
Systems Programmer Ohio State University , Columbus U.S.
                   The Advanced Computing Center For The Arts And Design
e-mail: derek@cgrg.ohio-state.edu  derek@osc.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:56:05 GMT

mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep18.222551.28385@uwm.edu> anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony
>> >There is of course, no such thing as a Macintosh compatible.  
>> Yes there is. Another Macintosh.

>Which is more than you can say for PCs...

>Anyway, there is such a thing as a Macintosh-compatible non-Apple computer. 
>The Outbound laptop is one, and the new Radius plug-in multiprocessing board
>is another.

buzz. thank you for playing. the Rocket (Radius(TM)) loads your Mac's ROM
into on-board memory. Not the same thing.

You're really paying for the ROMs, which have the toolbox on them. everything
else is really just icing. This is part of the reason NuTek scares apple silly,
they've got a "clean-development" room where they're reverse-engineering those
ROM routines, and trying to figure out the copy protection schemes...

daniel



>mathew
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Suggestions for the free Unix projects
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:40:55 GMT
	<BURLEY.92Oct4011851@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct4.124453.10061@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of 4 Oct 92 12:44:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.124453.10061@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>        If I am essentially "selling" a "free" distribution, it doesn't
>matter if I call my activity "charging copying fees", "documentation and
>support fees" or something else entirely; it is likely that some part of
>my profit is attributable to the GNU code.  

   That's irrelevent.  The "freeness" of the software has nothing to do
with price.  There is a difference between "free speech" and "free ice
cream", for example. 

>                                             Article 2(b) of the GPL puts
>any work containing it as a component in question if I bugfix the GNU
>code so that it will work a particular way for 386BSD.

   There's no question about it.  Any changes to GNU software must
themselves remain redistributable, though you are welcome to sell the
software with bugfixes. 
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: dc@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Cottingham)
Subject: Software copying a felony?!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Reply-To: dc@cobi.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA/GSFC-Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:29:00 GMT

An article in yesterday's Washington Post (25 Sep 92) mentions a bill
which has been passed by the US Senate (S.893) and is expected to be
passed soon by the House, which the article describes as "a bill to
move the willful copying of a computer program from a misdemeanor to
a felony."  Yes, you read right, a felony.  The article is not very
clear as to what sort of copying will be turned into a felony -- it
does say that this law "may not be invoked in small-scale violations,"
but I don't know if they mean "might not" or "cannot."  On their list
of "prime culprits" they include bulletin board operators, and they
also include individuals and schools as "potential lawbreakers."

The rest of the article talks about some recent efforts by the Software
Publishers Association to encourage people to obey copyrights.  They
have a new ad campaign containing encouragement like "If you copy
software that's protected by copyright, you could lose your job, face a
civil suit, pay a $100,000 fine and possibly be imprisoned."  They have
also released a rap video they want school teachers to show to students
(it comes complete with a _lesson plan_) explaining that copying
software is very bad.

It is apparent that our current copyright system, whatever its merits
as a framework for the development and dissemination of software,
suffers from a lack of cooperation from the consumer.  But let's face
some facts here.  First, most people attach no moral significance to
copying a floppy, and no music video or any other effort, no matter
how impressionable an audience it's aimed at, is likely to change that.
Second, although draconian legislation like S.893 may dissuade large
scale piracy, a person who copies a program for a friend knows he's
never going to be caught, so the law is no deterrent for this kind of
violation.  I would conclude that this kind of small scale copying
cannot possibly be stopped without some kind of systematic ongoing
search by the police -- the kind of thing we prefer to avoid.  Software
developers, and indeed everyone who relies on the copyright system,
face a choice between accepting this kind of individual copying, or
encouraging some very heavy-handed action by the government.

In any case, I think the FSF should help out the SPA here by producing
their own rap video (with lesson plan, of course) that reiterates
that if you copy programs like Lotus you will go to jail and be disowned
by your dog, but adds that if you avoid such software and stick to the
ones that are freely distributable, you will not run this terrible risk.
(Look for "freely distributable" on the label!)

 - Dave Cottingham
   dc@cobi.gsfc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:3214 comp.os.linux:12399 comp.unix.bsd:6811
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Suggestions for the free Unix projects
Date: 3 Oct 1992 16:15:50 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

>>There may be a role for a profit-making company to make a $50
>>shrink-wrapped free Unix with a manual and limited support.

>o	$54 for a boot floppy and tape distribution.
>o	$66 for a CD ROM distribution.
>o	$116 for a floppy only distribution.
>How does $1000 sound?  Like BSDI?

Ok guys: how does Coherent do it?   :-)

There you are -- a Profit making company, with manuals and support,
floppy distribution (albeit smaller than any of Linux et al), all
for $100.  They have to even write the OS ;-)

Some say their support ain't great shakes.  I wasn't hoping for more
than non-800 number help in installation.

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
From: burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Suggestions for the free Unix projects
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:18:51 GMT
	<1992Oct3.221703.1496@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of 3 Oct 92 22:17:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.221703.1496@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

   o	Potential legal costs if UCB, CMU, or GNU get upset about you selling
	   their code (GNU is real uptight about this, and CMU and UCB could
	   easily get uptight if AT&T can prove licence violation, one of the
	   charages against UCB).

What evidence do you have that "GNU is real uptight about [someone else
selling their code]?"

It'd be kind of strange for them to be uptight about something they went to
a fair amount of trouble to explicitly permit in the licenses for their
software.  (I've seen a lot of free software that simply says "can't
be distributed for commercial gain" -- the GPL has no such restriction.)

If you don't have any actual, hard evidence that Project GNU has ever
hassled somebody for _selling_ GNU code (as in charging for distributing
GNU code and/or programs to customers), please just say so, and don't start
a flame war.  A case where Project GNU (really the FSF) hassled someone
because they wanted to distribute GNU-derived code with _different_
(especially more restrictive) licensing agreements for a fee does not count,
of course, but that should be obvious given the context.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Subject: Re: Making Mach build with non-CMU tools (suggestions)
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:05:47

>>>>> gip200@sci.kun.nl (gip2 course) writes:

> In <STEINARB.92Oct4172851@hagtorn.idt.unit.no> steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang) writes:

>> One of the files in the docs/notes directory of mach.cs.cmu.edu
>> mentions that the Mach people at CMU are working on moving the
>> Makefiles over to a format usable by a freely available Make (The OSF
>> ODE Make based on the BSD-Reno Make from the). This work has been put
>> on low priority pending a favorable settlement of the BNR-2 lawsuit.

> Can't they just take GNU make and modify that?

They could, I guess, but it is not a high priority task for them (if
you're talking about CMU).

>> It also has to be a problem for the FSF. They would seem to
>> need an OS kernel that can be configured and compiled without a BSD
>> license.

> What about BSDSS and POE?

Neither is any use without the microkernel itself. These are server
processes that run on top of the microkernel. I believe that BSDSS is
converted to build with the ODE make, but since I haven't read any
info to the contrary, I believe that POE needs the ordinary CMU
environment to compile.

>>  1. Change GNU Make to support the same facilities as CMU Make

> That is probably the best solution at this moment. It is independent
> of what CMU does. If they change their makefiles, we can switch to
> GNU make, pmake, or whatever they use. If they don't, then that's
> ok too.

I think you're right. The reason I leaned to the second solution is
that I figured the GNU Make maintainer(s) would be unwilling to
clutter the GNU Make with facilities just to be able to compile a
single program (even one as important as the Mach microkernel).

>>  2. Do the changes necessary to the CMU Makefiles to make them work
>>     with the ODE Make (or the GNU Make for that matter), and nicely
>>     ask CMU to start using these Makefiles in their distribution.

> But that leaves you at the 'mercy' of CMU. It might be that they are
> not willing to change and that means that a lot of work is lost...

I agree.

- Steinar
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:3169 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:608
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 24 Sep 92 12:05:31 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes:
> In article <1992Sep18.222551.28385@uwm.edu> anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony
> >There is of course, no such thing as a Macintosh compatible.  
> Yes there is. Another Macintosh.

Which is more than you can say for PCs...

Anyway, there is such a thing as a Macintosh-compatible non-Apple computer. 
The Outbound laptop is one, and the new Radius plug-in multiprocessing board
is another.


mathew
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jhelberg@nl.oracle.com (Joost Helberg)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GNU dircmp
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:33:39 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


is there a GNU equivalence of the command 'dircmp' out there?

--  
   Joost Helberg                                Rijnzathe 6
   jhelberg@oracle.nl                           NL-3454 PV De Meern
   jhelberg@nl.oracle.com                       The Netherlands

   Oracle Europe BV                             Product Line Development	
   Phone: +31 3406 94211                        Fax:   +31 3406 65609
From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Distribution: world
Organization:  One of these days for sure
X-News: HERMES MMAIL 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
	<1a5dkkINNj1h@uwm.edu> <1992Oct2.193435.12355@cgrg.ohio-state.edu>
	<BvIGCM.Ixs@rice.edu> <1992Oct5.182842.16054@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 13:47:54 -0700

In <1992Oct5.182842.16054@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:

>I agree that those {Amiga,Atari} Mac emulators based on 64k Mac Plus
>ROMs make no sense today. (And I think a real Mac Classic with 9"
>peephole doesn't either.)

    Actually, the Atari emulator, and I beleive the Amiga emulator as well,
use the 128k roms. Apple has made the 256k rom set impossible to obtain, 
as ayone who wants to upgrade has to turn in their old roms, which the
dealers must return to Apple, and Apple will cut off any dealer selling
the 256k roms without obtaining a trade-in set. Which is exactly the issue
that started this thread. Apple obviously realises that use of their legal
roms to make a clone would endanger their sales, and refuses to allow this 
to happen.


-- 
       John Henders      jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
    I think your "evolutionary scale" needs an adjustment.  Either 
      that, or you've got your thumb on it. -> (lefty@apple.com)

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss