Started by t-rexky, December 01, 2011, 10:31:06 PM
Quote from: "oneNeXT"Thanks for sharing it, I hope I will be soon able to contact you from a custom app ...
Quote from: "oneNeXT"Just a clue ...http://www.nextcomputers.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3267In few words, pop3 seems to be in a good way, smtp support is started, imap should come later.Thanks to libcurl (http://curl.haxx.se/) !
Quote from: "kb7sqi"oneNeXT, It's been ages since I've had time to work on my "NeXT" like I used to, but curl/libcurl don't take too much to get compiled on the NeXT. The last version I compiled clean ie not using -posix w/ the stock NS 3.3 compiler was 7.25 or 7.26 if I remember off the top of my head. If you check out the antic thread of stuff I had ported & got working on the NeXT, you'll find pretty much all the detaills on getting the stock NeXT email app working w/ fetchmail, stunnel, msmtp. I'm in the process of closing on buying a house. If you need more info, I'll post a follow up next week after things get settled down a bit. For those wondering, I do still have all my NeXT gear. ;-) I just tend to do most things in a VM these days. Hope all is well. Take care
Quote from: "t-rexky"Cool oneNeXT - great effort!kb7sqi - my efforts have been a bit stalled lately with too many things on my plate both personally and professionally. However, I am still hoping to chip away at the compiler when I have time so it would be cool to chat at some point if you think you could spare some time. I would like to re-bootstrap the compiler on m68k with the OS X cctools just to see how it affects the test results. I also acquired a Quadra 660av in mint condition (from the original owner), replaced all the power supply and main board electrolytic capacitors and installed NetBSD/m68k on it. I bootstrapped GCC 3.2.3 on it and run the complete suite of tests to see how the failures compare with my NeXT build. There are just so many things to do on many different fronts that I feel scattered all over the place.Coincidentally, to add to the scatter, in the last few months I also added an HP 9000 Model 715/100XC and a SPARCstation 20 to my collection. The 715 has now been completely cleaned and refurbished with all new capacitors in the power supply (they were about to go) and ready for NS33 installation. The SS20 still needs a PSU refurbishment plus it is giving me a bit of grief with getting the display to work. Ultimately I will be able to test all four platforms at some point.And now I need a complete remodelling of my small 'cave' room in the basement since the various hardware is scattered all over every horizontal surface.Let me know Steve when and how you wanted to connect once you settle into your new home.Peter (t-rexky).
Quote from: "oneNeXT"Quote from: "kb7sqi"oneNeXT, It's been ages since I've had time to work on my "NeXT" like I used to, but curl/libcurl don't take too much to get compiled on the NeXT. The last version I compiled clean ie not using -posix w/ the stock NS 3.3 compiler was 7.25 or 7.26 if I remember off the top of my head. If you check out the antic thread of stuff I had ported & got working on the NeXT, you'll find pretty much all the detaills on getting the stock NeXT email app working w/ fetchmail, stunnel, msmtp. I'm in the process of closing on buying a house. If you need more info, I'll post a follow up next week after things get settled down a bit. For those wondering, I do still have all my NeXT gear. ;-) I just tend to do most things in a VM these days. Hope all is well. Take careHi kb7sqi,that's very nice to have some news of you, you're still near and that's great!Is this the thread you're talking about:http://www.nextcomputers.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1154It's good to see that Mail.app can still be used by updating some of the system component.But I would like to get my own access to the mail for my need.And maybe share a working new application.The last release of Curl I've been able to compile is 0.7.32I should try with 0.7.35, and for NeXTmail support compression must be managed.I believe that I found a solution...Another point is the secure access to mail server and for that, openssl is neededDo you plan to update your openssl package , or show how you did it ?Take care, you too .
Quote from: "kb7sqi"Hey t-rexky, It's taken a while longer than expected, but I'm still around. :-) I got a chance to try your new cctools package yesterday. Nice work! I quickly ran into a problem after using it to compile a few packages though. Everything works fine until you try to link to the libraries w/ the stock linker on say another system. I expected that, but was hoping it would still work. ;-) Testing confirmed it though. I'm working this weekend, but I'd still like to meet up on IRC or something in the near future. Hope all is well! Take care.Steve, kb7sqi
Quote from: "kb7sqi"Hey oneNeXT, I agree, it's pretty easy to still use Mail.app w/ fetchmail, msmtp, stunnel, etc. I've setup things multiple ways testing different email servers. Even using UUCP over SSH/SSL. :-) Sendmail still compiles pretty easily on a NeXT as well. It just uses the -posix flag. The last few versions of Postfix take more work. It's funny, that used to compile pretty much out of the box. OpenSSL posted a new release yesterday & I took the time to compile it quad-fat and linked it against zlib-1.2.8 like I've done in the past. OpenSSL reallly don't take much effort to compile cleanly on a NeXT. It only takes like 3-4 small little mods to the code. The only hassle in compiling it is you have to compile it 4 times (once for each architecture) & then lipo everything together to make a quad-fat package. If you're using a slow system, it can be pretty painful. lol. I compile it in a VM on a fast machine, so it only takes a few minutes. ;-) I've posted the OpenSSL/Z-Lib combo package along w/ other packages here:https://t.co/CNszTmVHvX
Quote from: "kb7sqi"I'll post a quick how-to in my old thread here shortly though how to compile OpenSSL so you can reference it & compile it yourself. Take care.Steve, kb7sqi
Quote from: "t-rexky"Quote from: "kb7sqi"Hey t-rexky, It's taken a while longer than expected, but I'm still around. :-) I got a chance to try your new cctools package yesterday. Nice work! I quickly ran into a problem after using it to compile a few packages though. Everything works fine until you try to link to the libraries w/ the stock linker on say another system. I expected that, but was hoping it would still work. ;-) Testing confirmed it though. I'm working this weekend, but I'd still like to meet up on IRC or something in the near future. Hope all is well! Take care.Steve, kb7sqiHey, and thanks for your kind words.I cannot recall if I tried libraries created with the new BSD 4.4 based 'ar' with the native NeXT cctools. I thought that the way they implemented support for long member file names was compatible with the BSD 4.3 format, but I may be wrong. The support for long member file names is required to compile recent GCC and other more complex packages (see this interesting post: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2011-11/msg00002.html).Issues like these contribute to my efforts being stalled, as I mentioned earlier. In order to progress with the porting efforts a unified strategy is required for modernized tools, libraries, etc. All ports compiled with this new setup will require a number of pre-requisites to run. I started thinking about how to structure it all, but I am too inexperienced with software development and too concerned that I make an incorrect assumption or an incorrect implementation. This has to be well planned to work long term and I don't have the knowledge to do it.It would be great to chat when you are available!
Quote from: "kb7sqi"I've been trying to give this some thought this week in my free time. Ideally it would great to replace some of the broken libs with routines that work properly. I was thinking about your progress w/ shared libs. That'd also come in handy when it comes to compiling stuff that links against tons of stuff like OpenSSL, Zlib, etc. Think about how much time it takes to re-link all the stuff which is compiled statically. Some people only can/want to run NEXTSTEP 3.3. Others prefer to run OPENSTEP 4.2. With OPENSTEP 4.2, there's the huge advantage of being able to use dylibs/frameworks which helps get rid of the problems when compiling statically. There's the problem w/ POSIX stuff. I spent sometime trying to find a way to resolve the issues w/ using your newer cctools and still keep things compatible w/ the BSD4.3. There's supposed to be a way to "convert" the libs. That's as far as I got before going to work. Years ago, I had re-compiled the cctools from Rhapsody for x86/m68k. It works, but besides maybe some bug fixes, I think the time/effort you've done w/ the newer cctools would provide the most benefit when it comes to "more modern" code. :-) I need to spend some time testing your cctools on my Gecko/Sparc systems though. I haven't had time to do that yet. I know when it comes to the Gecko, there might be some issues trying to compile a newer gcc. There's some stuff missing there compared to the other arch's. I'm not sure why NeXT did that. I wonder if that's why they never "officially" released OPENSTEP 4.2 for hppa despite it being developed & even passed onto some customers in Europe. Anyway, I'm going to try to look into the converting libs today I think. :-)If you're on Google Talk, feel free to hit me up sometime. Same nick @ gmail. :-) Take care!Steve
=== gcc Summary ===# of expected passes 24424# of unexpected failures 98# of unexpected successes 3# of expected failures 67# of unresolved test cases 25# of untested test cases 7# of unsupported tests 402/LocalDeveloper/Build/gcc-3.4.6-svn92/gcc/xgcc version 3.4.6
=== g++ Summary ===# of expected passes 9726# of unexpected failures 23# of unexpected successes 1# of expected failures 66# of unresolved testcases 3# of unsupported tests 88/LocalDeveloper/Build/gcc-3.4.6-svn92/gcc/testsuite/../g++ version 3.4.6
=== libstdc++ Summary ===# of expected passes 2010# of unexpected failures 25# of expected failures 4# of unsupported tests 9
Quote from: "barcher174"I'm very much looking forward to this. I have several questions. Are these test cases provided by GNU or did you develop them yourself? Is this something that we could share the bugs and work one at a time on? Are you hosting these files anywhere? I'm certainly willing to work on some of this if I have direction, but I have no idea where to start. At the very least maybe I can track down the source of some bugs and give a more competent developer information necessary to create a fix.--Brian