sean@utodaycom (Sean Fulton) (10/05/90)
I just got a copy of SCO UNIX 3.2 and the accompanying development system and installed it on my 386 PC. I was planning to compile our sources for CNEWS and rn on this machine and give them a go, but have run into what may be a less-than-minor problem. rn won't compile. I keep getting errors about stuff being left at the end of the undef, else and endif lines, as well as a bunch of syntax errors I'm still trying to wade through. The problem, from what I get out of the manual, is that the compiler is version 4 or 5, with more stringent source rules and the compiler I used to compile this stuff before (on a Xenix system) was version 3 which accepted this strangeness. I figure someone out there must have been through this before. Any help? The problems have cropped up here and there with a bunch of packages, but rn is the only one that has bombed (we're at patch level 47 from UUNET archives). I haven't tried CNEWS yet (I mean, if I can't get rn to work ...) -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (10/06/90)
In article <1821@utodaycom> sean@utoday.UUCP (Sean Fulton) writes: >I just got a copy of SCO UNIX 3.2 and the accompanying development >system and installed it on my 386 PC. I was planning to compile our >sources for CNEWS and rn on this machine and give them a go, but have >run into what may be a less-than-minor problem. rn won't compile. I >keep getting errors about stuff being left at the end of the undef, >else and endif lines, as well as a bunch of syntax errors I'm still >trying to wade through. Not that I have done this (since I don't have SCO UNIX), but I would suggest that you start with rcc (the real C compiler (pcc derivative)) instead of cc (which is the microsoft C compiler. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
Bron@cup.portal.com (George Bron Faison) (03/03/91)
In followup to article <1821@utodaycom> by sean@utoday.UUCP, Conner P. Cahill (uunet!virtech!cpcahill) writes: >>I just got a copy of SCO UNIX 3.2 and the accompanying development >>system and installed it on my 386 PC. I was planning to compile our >>sources for CNEWS and rn on this machine and give them a go, but have >>run into what may be a less-than-minor problem. rn won't compile. I >>keep getting errors about stuff being left at the end of the undef, >>else and endif lines, as well as a bunch of syntax errors I'm still >>trying to wade through. > >Not that I have done this (since I don't have SCO UNIX), but I would >suggest that you start with rcc (the real C compiler (pcc derivative)) >instead of cc (which is the microsoft C compiler. > Amen! I've run into all sorts of screwy problems using the "cc" compiler under Xenix releases. Same goes for Xenix termio. I would recommend following the above advice or consider getting the gcc stuff from FSF. Bron Faison Modern Office Systems Technology, Inc. (bron@cup.portal.com) 6006-B Mechanicsville Pike (voice:804-730-1467) Mechanicsville, VA 23111
mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) (03/04/91)
In article <39757@cup.portal.com> Bron@cup.portal.com (George Bron Faison) writes: >In followup to article <1821@utodaycom> by sean@utoday.UUCP, >Conner P. Cahill (uunet!virtech!cpcahill) writes: >>>I just got a copy of SCO UNIX 3.2 and the accompanying development >>>run into what may be a less-than-minor problem. rn won't compile. I >> B news 2.1? is available from SCO as a two-disk SLS set that installs under custom. It's downloadable free of charge from their anonymous uucp system, "sosco", or from many other places (uunet.uu.net, among others). The last time I compiled rn on a 386 XENIX box (2.3.2) I got all the patches from uunet and all I had to do was to use fixhdr to change the stack space for /bin/sh so that Configure would work; other than that it compiled with no changes at all. The more recent rn patches include modifications for XENIX compatibility. I know of several XENIX systems that got Cnews running; the people who did it did not seem to have much trouble, other than the usual ones. -- Mike Squires (mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) 812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 Under construction: mikes@sir-alan.cica.indiana.edu
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (03/08/91)
In article <39757@cup.portal.com> Bron@cup.portal.com (George Bron Faison) writes: >In followup to article <1821@utodaycom> by sean@utoday.UUCP, >Conner P. Cahill (uunet!virtech!cpcahill) writes: >>>I >>>keep getting errors about stuff being left at the end of the undef, >>>else and endif lines, as well as a bunch of syntax errors I'm still >>>trying to wade through. The first are warnings only. The syntax errors I can guess about, possibly, but don't know. I have gotten rn and trn running under sco unix with no problems; a while ago, I posted diffs for trn for SCO UNIX (using the system compiler) to comp.sources.d, I believe (this was several months ago). I don't have them, any more, but if someone *really* wants them, I could probably try to recreate them again. I think the main problem I had was that the system C compiler gets confused, at times, if an include file doesn't end with a blank line; as a result, I changed one of the include files to have an extra line in it. That was about it. -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and sef@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!sef | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
bob@ns.UUCP (Bob Mathias) (03/08/91)
In article <39757@cup.portal.com> Bron@cup.portal.com (George Bron Faison) writes:
I got the binary of rn for SCO UNIX directly from the SCO bbs (actually I got
it as part of the whole USENET package). SCO stated that they compiled rn and
I think one other module with the Xenix option set.
--
Bob Mathias uucp: ...!uunet!ccicpg!uis-oc!ns.UUCP!bob
Unisys Corporation CServ: 70340,165
A and V Series Systems Engineering voice: (714) 727-0323
Irvine, California Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com (03/08/91)
Oh, come on! Almost everyone knows that LOTS of good things, well-written in proper C, won't compile under SCO's UNIX-flavored operating system. When we upgraded to 3.2.2 from 3.2.0 because the latter just plain didn't work, I unfortunately lacked the presence of mind to demand a simultaneous upgrade for the development system that doesn't work. Because of that, I have no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works or not. Given SCO's standards for quality before release, and given its standards for how to treat the customer -- "Hey, he was stupid enough to buy our sh.t, tough luck to the idiot!" -- I'd be very surprised if it worked. Almost everyone knows, also, that part of the problem is Microsoft's C compiler, but since SCO has been a source code licensee all along, that's no excuse. I still wish SCO had upgraded us to a new development system that works, but, hey, what should I expect? From day one they were lies and dirt. It's all my fault. If I were a vicious fighter, I'd have gotten them to give me the new one free, and the one after that if it still wouldn't compile standard C. If they actively attacked me, they'd be a pile of smelly waste. But they didn't, they just SUB-criminally robbed me, just as they take advantage of the rest of the public, so all I can do is tell the truth about them as I see it, and hope that many of you are smart enough to buy from Interactive or ESIX or even Microport, instead. I've been programming computers for 33 years -- I started on the vacuum tube IBM 650 -- and I've never seen a company with a more irresponsible attitude towards its customers than SCO. It's just my opinion, but this one deserves to die!
emanuele@overlf.UUCP (Mark A. Emanuele) (03/11/91)
In article <2681@happym.wa.com>, Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com writes: > > I have > no idea whether the "fixed" version of the development system actually works > or not. I just got the upgrade. Now stuff that compiled on 3.2.0 wont compile on 3.2.2 -- Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 218 Summit Ave Fords, NJ 08863 (908) 738-8486 emanuele@overlf.UUCP