aixtoolbox-list — General discussion list for aixtoolbox

Re: [tbox-l] looking for Python 2.6 on AIX

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

On 16 Jun 2009, 01:56PM CDT, Bryan Henderson <hb...@us...> wrote:
>                     I saw the toolbox come on the scene ca 2002 as part of 
> an IBM initiative to tap the new Linux market.  It was called the AIX 
> Toolbox for Linux Applications for POWER Systems and connected with a 
> product branded AIX/L.  As I understand the marketing pitch, the idea was 
> for people to buy AIX and use it to develop applications to be run on 
> Linux systems.  (The answer to the obvious question -- why not just 
> develop on Linux -- was that AIX is more reliable and has better technical 
> support and bug fixing than available Linux products).  But _I_ just 
> called it the "GNU upgrade for AIX," since my AIX system is far more 
> serviceable with GNU ls, make, etc. instead of the ones that are part of 
> AIX.

Absolutely right, you are.  Also vice versa; develop software on Linux and 
scale it up to a large AIX system.

My description was a little colored by what ended up happening.  You'd be 
surprised how many people there are, even within IBM, who despite all the 
"as-is" verbiage in the Toolbox, build their software on top of some package 
and then expect us to support it as we do the kernel or part of AIX proper.
You quickly find the culture clash between "pampered IBM customer" and
"open source do-it-yourself'er".

This becomes much more of an issue given the current frozen situation.
Important things (including basic user satisfaction) now depend on Toolbox 
software, but updates have been brought to a crawl, and there is no reasonable 
way to maintain open source you can't update.  Just try opening a bugzilla 
bug on something 5 years old.  

> I don't know to what extent IBM just gathered ports from other places, but 
> it was always my impression that IBM did a massive porting effort itself 
> to create a complete set of tools that worked on its product.

We usually started with a spec file from an RPM-based distro and took it 
from there.  

>            Are there people who would use AIX instead of Linux if they 
> could easily get all the current applications?

I would say yes, providing you remove the words "instead of Linux".


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

Re: [tbox-l] looking for Python 2.6 on AIX

[Bryan H. <hb...@us...>]

Reza Arbab <ar...@au...> wrote on 06/16/2009 09:35:16 AM:

> On 15 Jun 2009, 04:16PM CDT, Jørn Amundsen <Jor...@nt...> 
wrote:
 
> >             It is difficult to understand why IBM can not cooperate
> > with one of its long term University customers, for instance by
> > donating a system, to a U, provided the U agrees to administer the
> > system and keep it on to the Internet for X years. Then an open source
> > project could be set up on the system, where IBM individuals and other
> > package builders could contribute to the community.
> 
> UCLA used to do this.  I don't know if there was an arrangement with 
donated
> machines, though. 

I'm sure availability of computing systems is not a significant factor in 
whether an operation like this can exist.  The primary factor is packaging 
and porting labor.  I don't think IBM would have any trouble contributing 
that either, but for some parts of IBM, there is the liability issue. 
Others, including universities and users of AIX don't feel the liability 
issue, but apparently can't scrape together the labor on a longterm basis.

> It's funny, I think in the beginning this Toolbox may have been intended 
to 
> consolidate some of the other AIX porting projects.  Indeed, a good 
number 
> of users (with little knowledge of open source) were attracted because 
they 
> assumed these packages were somehow under official IBM warranty or 
support,
> which they certainly aren't.

That's not how I understand its history.  I am an AIX user, by the way, 
not a developer, and while I work for IBM, I don't work in the division 
that produces AIX.  I saw the toolbox come on the scene ca 2002 as part of 
an IBM initiative to tap the new Linux market.  It was called the AIX 
Toolbox for Linux Applications for POWER Systems and connected with a 
product branded AIX/L.  As I understand the marketing pitch, the idea was 
for people to buy AIX and use it to develop applications to be run on 
Linux systems.  (The answer to the obvious question -- why not just 
develop on Linux -- was that AIX is more reliable and has better technical 
support and bug fixing than available Linux products).  But _I_ just 
called it the "GNU upgrade for AIX," since my AIX system is far more 
serviceable with GNU ls, make, etc. instead of the ones that are part of 
AIX.

One of the seven or so CDs on which AIX was delivered was a CD containing 
the toolbox.  IBM also offered the toolbox website for newer stuff.

I don't know to what extent IBM just gathered ports from other places, but 
it was always my impression that IBM did a massive porting effort itself 
to create a complete set of tools that worked on its product.

> Now that the Toolbox has become so stale, the situation is reversing and
> 3rd-party alternatives are the attractive option.  There are a number of 

> really good ones out there right now.  Google for "aix open source".

Marketing initiatives don't last more than 5 years.  This one was 
especially tenuous; I suspect it did not generate the sales its creators 
expected.  Are there people who would use AIX instead of Linux if they 
could easily get all the current applications?

> > IBM individuals are doing huge contributions to GCC and a lot of other
> > excellent open source initiatives, so how come it is not possible to
> > establish an open source project on packaging RPM's for AIX ?
> 
> The perceived risk of distributing other people's code was enough for 
> our various lawyers and steering committees to completely cripple the 
project 
> with process and red tape.

I do know that in at least some of the areas where IBM distributes code 
written by the open source community it has the same fears and process, 
but because the value of distributing is so high in those areas, IBM 
accepts the risk and puts in the resources to go through the process.

It's hard for many of us to understand how it might cost IBM millions of 
dollars if it distributes a port of Python, but on the other hand, if 
there's no substantial upside, I can see where it might not be worth 
taking a chance.  It costs money just to evaluate the risk.


It shouldn't be a big deal.  IBM is obviously in the best position to 
offer a toolbox like this, but anyone else could do it.  User groups have 
always done stuff like this.  Companies invest a lot of money in AIX 
systems; they should be willing to pay for the open source additions to 
it.

--
Bryan Henderson                     IBM Almaden Research Center
San Jose CA                         Storage Systems

Re: [tbox-l] looking for Python 2.6 on AIX

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

On 15 Jun 2009, 04:16PM CDT, Jørn Amundsen <Jor...@nt...> wrote:
> Reza, it must be frustrating to contribute open source under those
> conditions. 

It is indeed.  Trust me, it's not much fun only being able to repeatedly
tell people my hands are tied.

>             It is difficult to understand why IBM can not cooperate
> with one of its long term University customers, for instance by
> donating a system, to a U, provided the U agrees to administer the
> system and keep it on to the Internet for X years. Then an open source
> project could be set up on the system, where IBM individuals and other
> package builders could contribute to the community.

UCLA used to do this.  I don't know if there was an arrangement with donated
machines, though.  

It's funny, I think in the beginning this Toolbox may have been intended to 
consolidate some of the other AIX porting projects.  Indeed, a good number 
of users (with little knowledge of open source) were attracted because they 
assumed these packages were somehow under official IBM warranty or support,
which they certainly aren't.

Now that the Toolbox has become so stale, the situation is reversing and
3rd-party alternatives are the attractive option.  There are a number of 
really good ones out there right now.  Google for "aix open source".

> IBM individuals are doing huge contributions to GCC and a lot of other
> excellent open source initiatives, so how come it is not possible to
> establish an open source project on packaging RPM's for AIX ?

Contributing to open source is actually a less hairy issue.  The big 
difference is that the Toolbox is seen as IBM actually _distributing_ open 
source, even if it's just as a conduit; packaging with no modification.

The perceived risk of distributing other people's code was enough for 
our various lawyers and steering committees to completely cripple the project 
with process and red tape.

I think it is definitely possible to establish an open source AIX RPM project.
However, if IBM itself is at all involved in the operation of said project,
the bureaucracy will again deem that we are endorsing or distributing open 
source, and you can expect it to be neutered the same way the Toolbox was.

> I am puzzled why not the SPXXL user group (www.spxxl.org) have
> addressed this. Is it to your knowledge brought up at any of their
> meetings ?

Sorry, I have no idea.

> The present is a loss both to IBM and the customers regarding the
> supply in quantity and frequency of RPM packages, as compared to
> competing systems on other platforms and other vendors.

I agree 100%.


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

[tbox-l] bug in webmin rpm

[Jørn A. <Jor...@nt...>]

It is a bug in webmin, making it impossible to uninstall once installed:

root@f01n02:/# rpm -vv -e webmin
D: opening database mode 0x402 in /opt/freeware/packages
+ [ 0 = 0 ]
+ grep root=/opt/freeware/libexec/webmin /etc/webmin/miniserv.conf
+ 1> /dev/null 2>& 1
+ [ 0 = 0 ]
+ /etc/rc.d/init.d/webmin stop
+ 1> /dev/null 2>& 1
execution of webmin-1.150-1 script failed, exit status 1

This is due to a bug in /etc/webmin/stop:

root@f01n02:/# /etc/webmin/stop
Stopping Webmin server in /opt/freeware/libexec/webmin
cat: 0652-050 Cannot open /var/webmin/miniserv.pid.
/etc/webmin/stop[4]: kill: 0403-008 The number of parameters specified is not correct.

RPM will refuse to delete because of this script exiting with a
non-zero exit code. It is not possible to force deletion with
``rpm --force -e''.

Two workarounds:

  1. Start the webmin server and then delete everything with rpm -e webmin

  2. Change the last line in /etc/webmin/stop from
     kill `cat $pidfile`
     to
     if [ -s $pidfile ]; then kill `cat $pidfile`; fi

     Then run rpm -e webmin

Webmin 1.150 is released 2004-06-03. This problem is due to the webmin
setup script:

[webmin-1.150/setup.sh]
...
echo "#!/bin/sh" >>$config_dir/stop
echo "echo Stopping Webmin server in $wadir" >>$config_dir/stop
echo "pidfile=\`grep \"^pidfile=\" $config_dir/miniserv.conf | sed -e 's/pidfile
=//g'\`" >>$config_dir/stop
echo "kill \`cat \$pidfile\`" >>$config_dir/stop

Interestingly, this bug is also present in webmin 1.480 of 2009-06-11.

BTW, /etc/webmin/stop is not listed in the spec file files section. It
should be,

root@f01n02:/# rpm -qf /etc/webmin/stop
file /etc/webmin/stop is not owned by any package

Best Regards --Jørn Amundsen

Re: [tbox-l] looking for Python 2.6 on AIX

[Jørn A. <Jor...@nt...>]

Reza, it must be frustrating to contribute open source under those
conditions. It is difficult to understand why IBM can not cooperate
with one of its long term University customers, for instance by
donating a system, to a U, provided the U agrees to administer the
system and keep it on to the Internet for X years. Then an open source
project could be set up on the system, where IBM individuals and other
package builders could contribute to the community.

IBM individuals are doing huge contributions to GCC and a lot of other
excellent open source initiatives, so how come it is not possible to
establish an open source project on packaging RPM's for AIX ?

I am puzzled why not the SPXXL user group (www.spxxl.org) have
addressed this. Is it to your knowledge brought up at any of their
meetings ?

The present is a loss both to IBM and the customers regarding the
supply in quantity and frequency of RPM packages, as compared to
competing systems on other platforms and other vendors.

Best Regards --Jørn Amundsen


On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Reza Arbab wrote:

> Hi Christoph,
>
> On 13 Jun 2009, 01:33PM CDT, Christoph Pospiech <Chr...@de...> wrote:
>> Are there any plans to upgrade the existing Python 2.3 to 2.6 ? If not, does
>> anyone know a pointer to Python 2.6 on AIX ?
>
> I am working on approval to update the current Python, but it can take a very
> long time.  I recommend you try the link Brandon provided.
>
>
> --
> Reza Arbab
> ar...@au...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
> Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited
> royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing
> server and web deployment.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
> _______________________________________________
> aixtoolbox-list mailing list
> aix...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aixtoolbox-list
>

[tbox-l] Michael F Anderson is out of the office.

[<mfa...@he...>]

I will be out of the office starting  06/15/2009 and will not return until
06/23/2009.

I will respond to your message when I return.




CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution 
is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

[tbox-l] Simos Hadjiyiannis/Boulder/IBM is out of the office.

[Simos H. <ha...@us...>]

I will be out of the office starting  05/29/2009 and will not return until
06/29/2009.

During my absence, you may contact the Unix team management:

Ken OConnor/Southbury/IBM
David Chemidlin/Cranford/IBM

I will respond to your e-mail when I return.

Regards,

Simos Hadjiyiannis
IBM Global Services

Re: [tbox-l] looking for Python 2.6 on AIX

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

Hi Christoph,

On 13 Jun 2009, 01:33PM CDT, Christoph Pospiech <Chr...@de...> wrote:
> Are there any plans to upgrade the existing Python 2.3 to 2.6 ? If not, does 
> anyone know a pointer to Python 2.6 on AIX ?

I am working on approval to update the current Python, but it can take a very
long time.  I recommend you try the link Brandon provided.


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

Re: [tbox-l] looking for Python 2.6 on AIX

[Brandon B. <bb...@us...>]

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 08:33:42PM +0200, Christoph Pospiech wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am looking for Python 2.6 on AIX. I only found Python 2.3 in the AIX 
>Toolbox.
>
>Are there any plans to upgrade the existing Python 2.3 to 2.6 ? If not, does 
>anyone know a pointer to Python 2.6 on AIX ?
>-- 
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
>
>Dr. Christoph Pospiech
>High Performance & Parallel Computing
>Phone: 	+49-351 86269826
>Mobile: +49-171-765 5871
>E-Mail: Chr...@de...
>-------------------------------------
>IBM Deutschland GmbH
>Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Erich Clementi
>Geschäftsführung: Martin Jetter (Vorsitzender),
>Reinhard Reschke, Christoph Grandpierre,
>Matthias Hartmann, Michael Diemer, Martina Koederitz
>Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 
>14562 WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 99369940
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
>Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited
>royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing 
>server and web deployment.
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
>_______________________________________________
>aixtoolbox-list mailing list
>aix...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aixtoolbox-list

Looks like there is one available from pWare repo:

http://pware.hvcc.edu/download/aix53/pware53.python.2.6.1.0.bff.gz

Hope this works for you. :)

--
Brandon Boles
PowerHA Development Support Specialist
bb...@us...

[tbox-l] looking for Python 2.6 on AIX

[Christoph P. <Chr...@de...>]

Hi,

I am looking for Python 2.6 on AIX. I only found Python 2.3 in the AIX 
Toolbox.

Are there any plans to upgrade the existing Python 2.3 to 2.6 ? If not, does 
anyone know a pointer to Python 2.6 on AIX ?
-- 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards

Dr. Christoph Pospiech
High Performance & Parallel Computing
Phone: 	+49-351 86269826
Mobile: +49-171-765 5871
E-Mail: Chr...@de...
-------------------------------------
IBM Deutschland GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Erich Clementi
Geschäftsführung: Martin Jetter (Vorsitzender),
Reinhard Reschke, Christoph Grandpierre,
Matthias Hartmann, Michael Diemer, Martina Koederitz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Stuttgart / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 
14562 WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 99369940

Re: [tbox-l] Problem linking g++ on aix 5.2

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

Hi Chuck,

On 09 Jun 2009, 04:07PM CDT, Chuck Lyon <ch...@fi...> wrote:
> I cannot create an executable with g++ due to an ld error:

I think this was a known problem with the 4.0.0 packages we had.  Please 
install the latest 4.2.0 packages and see if that doesn't correct things.

You can find them here: 
<ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/RPMS/ppc/gcc>


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

[tbox-l] Problem linking g++ on aix 5.2

[Chuck L. <ch...@fi...>]

Hello,

I cannot create an executable with g++ due to an ld error:

g++ -o hw hw.cpp   
ld: 0711-317 ERROR: Undefined symbol: .std::basic_ostream<char,
std::char_traits<char> >& std::operator<< <std::char_traits<char>
>(std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&, char const*)
ld: 0711-345 Use the -bloadmap or -bnoquiet option to obtain more
information.
collect2: ld returned 8 exit status

The only references to these errors I've seen indicate a mismatch in the
compiler/library versions but I don't see where.  Any advice appreciated
Thanks!

I installed the following from RPM:
gcc-4.0.0-1
gcc-c++-4.0.0-1
libgcc-4.0.0-1
libstdc++-4.0.0-1
libstdc++-devel-4.0.0-1
>From the aix5.2 series.

Source:
#include <iostream>
int
main ()
{
std::cout << "hello, world!";
return 0;
}

[tbox-l] unsubscribe

[Andreas S. <asc...@pr...>]

Am Freitag, 22. Mai 2009 schrieb Reza Arbab:
> On 12 May 2009, 01:02PM CDT, DickT <rr...@hv...> wrote:
> > the file /opt/freeware/lib/libxml2.a from libxml2-2.6.21-3.aix5.2.ppc.rpm
> > only has the 32 bit object.
>
> This has been corrected in libxml2-2.6.21-4:
>
> <ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/RPMS/ppc/libxml2/li
>bxml2-2.6.21-4.aix5.2.ppc.rpm>
> <ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/RPMS/ppc/libxml2/li
>bxml2-devel-2.6.21-4.aix5.2.ppc.rpm>
>
>
> --
> Reza Arbab
> ar...@au...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is
> a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet
> the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, &
> iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian
> Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com
> _______________________________________________
> aixtoolbox-list mailing list
> aix...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aixtoolbox-list

Re: [tbox-l] 64 bit libxml2

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

On 12 May 2009, 01:02PM CDT, DickT <rr...@hv...> wrote:
> the file /opt/freeware/lib/libxml2.a from libxml2-2.6.21-3.aix5.2.ppc.rpm 
> only has the 32 bit object.

This has been corrected in libxml2-2.6.21-4:  

<ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/RPMS/ppc/libxml2/libxml2-2.6.21-4.aix5.2.ppc.rpm>
<ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/RPMS/ppc/libxml2/libxml2-devel-2.6.21-4.aix5.2.ppc.rpm>


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

Re: [tbox-l] Standards

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

Hi Paul,

On 15 May 2009, 10:03AM CDT, Paul Pryor <ppr...@gm...> wrote:
> The reason is that even through we always use prefix '/opt/freeware'
> for everything (the old /usr/opt/freeware is being discontinued) we 
> still install some binaries in /usr/bin, or /usr/linux/bin. Do we  
> continue to do this, and what are current rules (what goes into  
> /usr/bin, and what goes into /usr/linux/bin)?

The actual binary goes into /opt/freeware/bin.  We put a symlink in /usr/bin
which points to that binary.  However, if that symlink causes a name clash, 
(i.e. a GNU util with the same name as its AIX equivalent), we put that symlink
in /usr/linux/bin instead.

The end result is that in most cases, a user can use Toolbox programs via
/usr/bin, without altering $PATH.  The exception; to "override" AIX ls with
GNU ls, the user would have to specifically call /usr/linux/bin/ls, or prepend
/usr/linux/bin to $PATH.

> And now that we have 64 bits - the 64 bit libraries (shared and
> static) are installed in /opt/freeware/64/lib. Do we know that we
> could combine 32 bits and 64 bits inside libraries (only on pSeries
> platforms)?

There are two cases:
  an AIX defacto library achive: libaix.a
  an "ELF-style" standalone shared object: libelf.so
  
In the first case, we will have:
  /opt/freeware/lib/libaix.a
                              (which contains both shr.o and shr_64.o)
  /opt/freeware/64/lib/libaix.a -> /opt/freeware/lib/libaix.a
                              (symlink, not really necessary but illustrative
                               that this library is 64-bit enabled)

In the second, we have:
  /opt/freeware/lib/libelf.so
                              (the 32-bit object)
  /opt/freeware/64/lib/libelf.so
                              (the 64-bit object)

The end result here is that in both cases, a user linking a 64-bit binary
needs only to prepend -L/opt/freeware/64/lib to the link line.

>              Should we support use of libXXX.so or put it inside
> libXXX.a?    

In general, we try to wrap all shared objects in an archive.  However, we
have not been mixing static objects and shared objects in the same archive.

The reason is that this way usually required little to no modification of the
source.  Most of these packages can be configured to build "static libraries,
shared libraries, or both".  But not "all in one".  Doing so would require
more changes to their Makefiles, autotools, libtool, or what have you.

> Do we need to support iSeries? What about AIX 4? What is the lowest
> AIX release we need to support?

You do not need to support iSeries, or AIX 4.  In fact, the oldest supported
level of AIX is now AIX 5.3.  The main Toolbox build machine is currently 5.2,
but we will eventually migrate it to 5.3.

AIX is backwards-compatible, so if you build a binary on 5.3, it will work on
any later level as well.

<http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/aix/compatibility/index.html>

> And finally, should we install by default 32 bit binaries, or 64 bit binaries?

Unless it's really necessary to compile 64-bit, just use 32.  There is a lot
of code out there that is still not 64-bit safe. 

> I can contribute spec files or SRPMs - do you take any contributions?
> Where do I send them to?

Absolutely!  You can send SRPMS to me.  It takes a very long time for me to
get approval to update things, to the aggravation of anyone reading this list,
I'm sure.  But I will do my best. 


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

[tbox-l] Standards

[Paul P. <ppr...@gm...>]

Are there any standards for RPM and spec files?

The reason is that even through we always use prefix '/opt/freeware'
for everything (the old /usr/opt/freeware is being discontinued) we
still install some binaries in /usr/bin, or /usr/linux/bin. Do we
continue to do this, and what are current rules (what goes into
/usr/bin, and what goes into /usr/linux/bin)?

And now that we have 64 bits - the 64 bit libraries (shared and
static) are installed in /opt/freeware/64/lib. Do we know that we
could combine 32 bits and 64 bits inside libraries (only on pSeries
platforms)?  Should we support use of libXXX.so or put it inside
libXXX.a? The trend I see now is:

/opt/freeware/64/lib/libXXX.a - static
/opt/freeware/64/lib/XXX.so - shared
/opt/freeware/lib/libXXX.a - static
/opt/freeware/lib/XXX.so - shared

We could combine all of those into single /opt/freeware/lib/libXXX.a -
standard RPM will contain only 32 and 64 bits shared, and the
development RPM contains both 32 and 64 bits shared and static. The
convention in /usr/lib/libc.a is 32 bit members are named xxx.o and
the 64 bit members are named xxx_64.o, and the shr.o is 32 bit shared
member, and shr_64.o is 64 bits shared member.

Do we need to support iSeries? What about AIX 4? What is the lowest
AIX release we need to support?

And finally, should we install by default 32 bit binaries, or 64 bit binaries?

I can contribute spec files or SRPMs - do you take any contributions?
Where do I send them to?

Thanks!

Paul Pryor

[tbox-l] 64 bit libxml2

[DickT <rr...@hv...>]

The README for the AIX Toolbox for Linux states that libxml2 is one of the libraries that has both 32 bit and 64 bit objects.  I have downloaded and installed but the file /opt/freeware/lib/libxml2.a from libxml2-2.6.21-3.aix5.2.ppc.rpm only has the 32 bit object.

Is this a known problem and is there a fix available?

         Thanks

Re: [tbox-l] coreutils-5.2.1-2 ( su given wrong path )

[Jørn A. <Jor...@nt...>]

The coreutils RPM, like most other utilities, is horribly
outdated. Even considering fixing bugs in such outdated code is highly
questionable.

Current version is 7.2, 5.2.1 is more than 5 years old !  Consider
using the RPMs from the excellent site perzl.org (currently at 6.12),
or building your own. Current 7.2 builds without hassle. I would suggest

   ./configure --with-libiconv-prefix=/usr --with-libintl-prefix=/usr \
     --disable-libcap --enable-install-program=arch,hostname,su

You might need a newer gettext (I built against 0.17).

Best Regards --Jørn Amundsen


On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Hans-Joachim Ehlers wrote:

> The su command from coreutils-5.2.1-2 does not set the Path correctly - thus picking up the path from /etc/environment - in case an user switches via "su -" to root.
>
> The path locks like:
> !$ /opt/freeware/bin/su -
> Password:
>
> (0)root@node:/root
> $ echo $PATH
> /usr/ucb:/bin:/usr/bin:/etc
>
>
> A simple strings /opt/freeware/bin/su lead me to the assumption that the path given by su is hardcoded .
>
> !$ strings /opt/freeware/bin/su | grep etc
> /usr/ucb:/bin:/usr/bin:/etc
>
> It?s a bug or a feature ?
>
> cheers
> Hajo
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> aixtoolbox-list mailing list
> aix...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aixtoolbox-list
>

[tbox-l] coreutils-5.2.1-2 ( su given wrong path )

[Hans-Joachim E. <Han...@eu...>]

The su command from coreutils-5.2.1-2 does not set the Path correctly - thus picking up the path from /etc/environment - in case an user switches via "su -" to root.

The path locks like: 
!$ /opt/freeware/bin/su -
Password:

(0)root@node:/root
$ echo $PATH
/usr/ucb:/bin:/usr/bin:/etc


A simple strings /opt/freeware/bin/su lead me to the assumption that the path given by su is hardcoded .

!$ strings /opt/freeware/bin/su | grep etc
/usr/ucb:/bin:/usr/bin:/etc

It’s a bug or a feature ?

cheers
Hajo

Re: [tbox-l] Python on aix 5.3

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

Hi Mostafa,

On 20 Mar 2009, 05:35AM CDT, Mostafa Boukaibat <mo...@ca...> wrote:
>         libcrypto.a(libcrypto.so.0.9.8) is needed by python-2.3.4-4
>         libssl.a(libssl.so.0.9.8) is needed by python-2.3.4-4.

You need to install OpenSSL, from this website:

<https://www14.software.ibm.com/webapp/iwm/web/reg/pick.do?source=aixbp>

Once it is installed, you also need to run /usr/sbin/updtvpkg as root.


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

[tbox-l] Python on aix 5.3

[Mostafa B. <mo...@ca...>]

Hello ,
I try to install Python on aix 5.3 but i get this error :
       error: failed dependencies:
        libcrypto.a(libcrypto.so.0.9.8) is needed by python-2.3.4-4
        libssl.a(libssl.so.0.9.8) is needed by python-2.3.4-4.

Please is there any reqirement or process to install python on aix 5.3 ,
Many thanks for advices ,

Mostafa Boukaibat
IBM Canada
Phone : 514-964-8552
Email: mo...@ca...

Re: [tbox-l] Gawk 3.1.6?

[Reza A. <ar...@au...>]

Hi David,

Here is the latest gawk in the Toolbox:

<ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/aix/freeSoftware/aixtoolbox/RPMS/ppc/gawk/gawk-3.1.3-1.aix5.1.ppc.rpm>

In general, things built on a particular AIX release will also run on any 
later releases as well.  So the above RPM is for AIX 5.1 or newer.

If you have a immediate need for gawk-3.1.6 in particular, I would 
recommend tweaking our gawk-3.1.3 source RPM to build gawk-3.1.6.


-- 
Reza Arbab
ar...@au...

[tbox-l] Gawk 3.1.6?

[David V. <DV...@bi...>]

Hi!

Is this list still active?

Where can I find a binary rpm for gawk 3.1.6 for AIX 5.3?

Thanks!


Dave Venus

[tbox-l] Gawk 3.1.6?

[David V. <DV...@bi...>]

Hi!

Is this list still active?

Where can I find an rpm for gawk 3.1.6 for AIX 5.3?

Thanks!


Dave Venus

[tbox-l] -qarch options?

[Bill P. <bpr...@sy...>]

I was looking at the spec files and it appears that the most basic
architectures is used in the spec files.  Isn't AIX a little more
restrictive than this?  Can they use 'pwr2' or 'pwr'?  The 64bit
versions must be on a 'pwr3' or better (but I guess the compiler knows
this).