Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
Bill Buckels schrieb:[color=blue]
> I am currently struggling with compiling cpmtools 2.7 in win32.
>
> I am assuming that support is provided for Apple CP/M disk images in this
> version and that 2.7 is in fact the latest version.
>
> [url]http://www.moria.de/~michael/cpmtools/[/url]
>
> I would appreciate binaries that are already compiled if someone else has
> toughed-out what I am attempting.
>
> My next best case scenario to having the work already done for me would be
> to have a working MinGW Makefile.
>
> I'm probably out of luck and will actually need to do some work here, but
> thought I would ask anyway.
>
> Bill[/color]
I installed it on Windows XP (32bit) with cygwin on the system a while
ago. Worked the same as under Linux/BSD as described in file INSTALL.
Run ./configure and then make, that's it. Only installation of the UNIX
manual pages required a symbolic link, because the local installed paths
are different.
Udo Munk
--
The real fun is building it and then using it...
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
"Udo Munk" <umunk@unix4fun.org> wrote in message
news:gfclog$v5b$00$1@news.t-online.com...[color=blue]
>I installed it on Windows XP (32bit) with cygwin on the system a while ago.[/color]
I have been resisting cygwin on my home machines but I want this so badly I
am done fighting to stay in a native XP cmd Window. It's hard to say why I
am this way. I develop in Qt for Linux and Windows at work. Maybe that's why
I am this way:)
[color=blue]
>Worked the same as under Linux/BSD as described in file INSTALL. Run
>./configure and then make, that's it. Only installation of the UNIX manual
>pages required a symbolic link, because the local installed paths are
>different.[/color]
I wanted to create a binary installation for Windows probably using Inno
setup. And I wanted to create an html version of the manpages. We'll see how
all that goes.
Not everyone who wants to make CP/M disk images will want to install cygwin
and roll their own. Perhaps they would appreciate such a thing.
[color=blue]
>The real fun is building it and then using it...[/color]
Maybe they'd rather write Aztec C CP/M programs than need to build something
for Windows XP that everyone who has it has already built. It just seems
dumb. To some of course Aztec C and CP/M is dumb:)
Bill
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
"Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net> writes:[color=blue][color=green]
> >Worked the same as under Linux/BSD as described in file INSTALL. Run
> >./configure and then make, that's it. Only installation of the UNIX manual
> >pages required a symbolic link, because the local installed paths are
> >different.[/color]
>
> I wanted to create a binary installation for Windows probably using Inno
> setup. And I wanted to create an html version of the manpages. We'll see how
> all that goes.[/color]
I am afraid all I can do is pointing at README.win32. I don't use
Windows and have no desire to, but I will accept contributions like
Makefiles. If you have a command line compiler, it should not be hard
to write a Makefile for it. Use config.h.in as a template to write your
own config.h and you are almost there.
Btw, there is 2.8 now, but it contains only a few small fixes, nothing
that helps with your problem.
Michael
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
Hello Michael,
On 12 Nov 2008 07:12:55 GMT, (Michael Haardt) wrote:
[color=blue]
>I am afraid all I can do is pointing at README.win32. I don't use
>Windows and have no desire to, but I will accept contributions like
>Makefiles. If you have a command line compiler, it should not be hard
>to write a Makefile for it. Use config.h.in as a template to write your
>own config.h and you are almost there.
>
>Btw, there is 2.8 now, but it contains only a few small fixes, nothing
>that helps with your problem.[/color]
For me it has with Windows 2000 or XP also does not work so I prefer
to use Linux.
I have no desire it with Windows to make.
Rolf
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
"Rolf Harrmann" <rolf-junk-harrmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:1aalh4totc7oej9c281evhtmj10io6s4pj@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>For me it has with Windows 2000 or XP also does not work[/color]
Oh but it does work! John Elliot did a good job on the Windows side I think.
As did Michael Haardt on all of it.
[color=blue]
>so I prefer to use Linux.[/color]
That's a good reason to use Linux? <g> I have always used Linux since about
beta version .9 something because it is free and some of my clients don't
like to pay licencing much for unix. I used Free BSD for the same reason.
Minux I used for entertainment. It was a novelty. AIX, HpUX, Zenix, Sun OS
and Solaris and XENIX I used for the clients who paid licencing.
I also like the Aztec C Shells for the Apple II and CP/M. Jim Goodnow II did
a good job there.
[color=blue]
>I have no desire it with Windows to make.[/color]
Thanks for sharing your desire with us. But it sounds more like your
frustration:) Let me say this: Windows works well and Unix does too.
I had no problem building this in Windows using MinGW and the native Windows
cmd prompt. If I had built it under cygwin I may have introduced a
dependency on cygwin's runtime as others have already and then need to
redistribute a third party cygwin dll.
Fortunately for me I don't need Windows to look like unix nor unix to look
like Windows, nor CP/M to look like either.
John Elliot gave good advice. Use MinGW.
So I just used cygwin's unix emulator to configure and then built at the
native Windows XP MinGW cmd prompt with no changes to the 2.7 package
whatsoever. It ain't rocket science except to users or frustrated
developers. Once you reach a level of frustration it is best to stand back
and try a different approach. If that approach is to change operating
systems then IMO that's a little drastic.
However since Windows users may desire to have cpmptools without needing to
compile it and stick cygwin on their machines and since it is apparently an
excellent set of tools I shall persist with my desire to make this available
to them without confusing your frustration with their desire.
I agree with Michael that if you have a command line compiler, it is not
hard to write a Makefile for it. However, if MinGW already works and is free
why not use it exclusively and remove the Makefiles that don't work like the
one for MSC 8 (Visual Studio 6). I didn't try BCC but BCC is free from the
Borland Museum in case someone wants to try it. I've got enough on my plate
right now so not bothering.
I am also not bothering with fsed.cpm because I don't feel like mucking with
curses libraries for Windows. I am taking John Elliot's approach on this and
I don't intend to alter Michael Haardt's package one bit with the minor
contribution of fsed.cpm for Windows, since the degree of effort doesn't fit
into my priorities. Some other time perhaps.
As I said at the beginning the rest of this works as-is as far as it works
and as far as I've tested so far. I don't wish to give the impression
otherwise.
Have Fun!
Bill
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
"Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net> wrote in message
news:NAUSk.4466$Gm3.4209@newsfe01.iad...[color=blue]
>Zenix[/color]
???
Brain f*rt. OTOH I could have added Unix for Windows to the list from back
in '94 I think:)
Bill
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
Hello Bill,
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:55:18 -0600, "Bill Buckels" wrote:
[color=blue]
>I also like the Aztec C Shells for the Apple II and CP/M. Jim Goodnow II did
>a good job there.[/color]
I programming Aztec C under CP/M 2.2 or CP/M 3.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>I have no desire it with Windows to make.[/color]
>
>Thanks for sharing your desire with us. But it sounds more like your
>frustration:) Let me say this: Windows works well and Unix does too.[/color]
I now use Linux more and more instead of Windows 2000 or XP.
Rolf
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
Udo Munk wrote:[color=blue]
> Bill Buckels schrieb:[color=green]
>> I am currently struggling with compiling cpmtools 2.7 in win32.
>>
>> I am assuming that support is provided for Apple CP/M disk images in
>> this version and that 2.7 is in fact the latest version.
>> [...]
>> Bill[/color]
>
> I installed it on Windows XP (32bit) with cygwin on the system a while
> ago. Worked the same as under Linux/BSD as described in file INSTALL.
> Run ./configure and then make, that's it. Only installation of the UNIX
> manual pages required a symbolic link, because the local installed paths
> are different.
>
> Udo Munk[/color]
I agree, using cygwin (there's a small setup program which is able to
download all necessary files automatically and also it works seamless
after it - using ./configure as you already told) is not rocket science.
But you will generate .exe files which always needs cygwin1.dll .
It's also possible to use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0, and then all
generated executables do not need cygwin1.dll, typically all needed .dll
files are existing in a Windows 2000/XP installation already.
But - cygwin offers also very useful utilities and because I'm an old
school unix veteran, I like it very much, still.
To Bill Buckels: Just look at my pages in the next two or three days,
and I will place an executable (ready compiled) package there for your
(and others) convinience.
--
* Try [url]http://www.z80.eu/blog[/url] for a vintage computer blog :-)
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
"Peter Dassow" <z80eu@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:491ddd5d$0$32681$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...[color=blue]
>To Bill Buckels: Just look at my pages in the next two or three days, and I
>will place an executable (ready compiled) package there for your (and
>others) convinience.[/color]
Hi Peter,
I have compiled cmptools already using MinGW with no cygwin dependencies. I
am almost finished the html version of the manpages and I will be putting
this on my site shortly as well.
I will also be adding some Apple II specific documentation. Let's race and
see who is first to get their respective websites updated:)
I am being very fussy with the html version of the manpages. I want them to
look as outstanding as this great toolset by Michael Haardt deserves. They
will of course be GNU since the content and cmptools are GNU already.
When in GNOME, GNU as the GNOMES GNU! Linus would likely shoot me in an
instance of my foot for saying so.
Bill
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:19:41 +0100, Peter Dassow wrote:
[color=blue]
> Udo Munk wrote:[color=green]
>> Bill Buckels schrieb:[color=darkred]
>>> I am currently struggling with compiling cpmtools 2.7 in win32.
>>>
>>> I am assuming that support is provided for Apple CP/M disk images in
>>> this version and that 2.7 is in fact the latest version.
>>> [...]
>>> Bill[/color]
>>
>> I installed it on Windows XP (32bit) with cygwin on the system a while
>> ago. Worked the same as under Linux/BSD as described in file INSTALL.
>> Run ./configure and then make, that's it. Only installation of the UNIX
>> manual pages required a symbolic link, because the local installed paths
>> are different.
>>
>> Udo Munk[/color]
>
> I agree, using cygwin (there's a small setup program which is able to
> download all necessary files automatically and also it works seamless
> after it - using ./configure as you already told) is not rocket science.
> But you will generate .exe files which always needs cygwin1.dll .[/color]
Yes, but that isn't really a problem. Cpmtools is an Open Source project,
so the DLL could be distributed together with the binaries. If that really
is unwanted for some reason then there is MinGW, which builds static
linked binaries, that won't need any shared library.
Also there is plenty of other stuff that builds and runs with cygwin
installed on a Windows system.
[color=blue]
> It's also possible to use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0, and then all
> generated executables do not need cygwin1.dll, typically all needed .dll
> files are existing in a Windows 2000/XP installation already. But -[/color]
Sometimes not all the needed .dll files are on a XP system, if
applications where build with Microsoft development tools. Same problem
and probably a more difficult license issue as with the cygwin tools.
[color=blue]
> cygwin offers also very useful utilities and because I'm an old school
> unix veteran, I like it very much, still.[/color]
This cmd.exe thing is some kind of joke, for working at the command line
one needs cygwin anyway. So why someone who wants to use CP/M command line
stuff won't get cygwin tools is difficult to understand for me.
[color=blue]
> To Bill Buckels: Just look at my pages in the next two or three days,
> and I will place an executable (ready compiled) package there for your
> (and others) convinience.[/color]
That should solve this problem. I'm just wondering how someone wants to
debug 8080 code with ddt, when not able to install an development
environment on some sort of Windows box ;-)
Udo Munk
--
The real fun is building it and then using it...
Re: cpmtools Win32 wanted
[QUOTE=unix;1682740]On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:19:41 +0100, Peter Dassow wrote:
[color=blue]
> Udo Munk wrote:[color=green]
>> Bill Buckels schrieb:[color=darkred]
>>> I am currently struggling with compiling cpmtools 2.7 in win32.
>>>
>>> I am assuming that support is provided for Apple CP/M disk images in
>>> this version and that 2.7 is in fact the latest version.
>>> [...]
>>> Bill[/color]
>>
>> I installed it on Windows XP (32bit) with cygwin on the system a while
>> ago. Worked the same as under Linux/BSD as described in file INSTALL.
>> Run ./configure and then make, that's it. Only installation of the UNIX
>> manual pages required a symbolic link, because the local installed paths
>> are different.
>>
>> Udo Munk[/color]
>
> I agree, using cygwin (there's a small setup program which is able to
> download all necessary files automatically and also it works seamless
> after it - using ./configure as you already told) is not rocket science.
> But you will generate .exe files which always needs cygwin1.dll .[/color]
Yes, but that isn't really a problem. Cpmtools is an Open Source project,
so the DLL could be distributed together with the binaries. If that really
is unwanted for some reason then there is MinGW, which builds static
linked binaries, that won't need any shared library.
Also there is plenty of other stuff that builds and runs with cygwin
installed on a Windows system.
[color=blue]
> It's also possible to use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0, and then all
> generated executables do not need cygwin1.dll, typically all needed .dll
> files are existing in a Windows 2000/XP installation already. But -[/color]
Sometimes not all the needed .dll files are on a XP system, if
applications where build with Microsoft development tools. Same problem
and probably a more difficult license issue as with the cygwin tools.
[color=blue]
> cygwin offers also very useful utilities and because I'm an old school
> unix veteran, I like it very much, still.[/color]
This cmd.exe thing is some kind of joke, for working at the command line
one needs cygwin anyway. So why someone who wants to use CP/M command line
stuff won't get cygwin tools is difficult to understand for me.
[color=blue]
> To Bill Buckels: Just look at my pages in the next two or three days,
> and I will place an executable (ready compiled) package there for your
> (and others) convinience.[/color]
That should solve this problem. I'm just wondering how someone wants to
debug 8080 code with ddt, when not able to install an development
environment on some sort of Windows box ;-)
Udo Munk
--
The real fun is building it and then using it...[/QUOTE]
get your words
