GNU rant
RJDurkee
frustrating experience I have had while working on AIX. Very difficult
to find stuff, poorly documented, very time-consuming.
Trying to download the C compiler.
First you have to figure out that it is called gcc. Then you have to
figure out that in the ftp directory that you only need the "core"
file. Then you have to download and install BZIP2 because for some
unknown illogical reason they used this product for compression. Guess
what? - the BZIP2 product requires gcc to install !!!. CATCH-22. If you
figure out a way around that dillema, and actually get gcc
uncompressed, the install instructions are terrible and number of
parameters to possibly configure is ridiculous. Then when you run the
CONFIGURE command you get an error that says there is no "cc" or"gcc"
program in the $PATH. What the heck is going there???? If I had cc or
gcc, I wouldn't be trying to install gcc.
I have been a hater of Windows for a long time, but if public domain
software for AIX cannot be packaged any better than the POS gcc, I may
have to reevaluate Windows. At least most of the installs are
standardized.
Rich Durkee
Hajo Ehlers
a lot of ....
If you need the GCC go to IBM and download all RPMs.
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/aix/products/aixos/linux/download.html
Have a nice weekend
Hajo
sdpeck
You just saved me a whole afternoon of frustration.
Thanks,
Scott
Dave
If you download Sources, you have to already have a compiler...
If you go to IBM's web site, you can get the RPM's for the pre-built
binaries...
If you go to Bull Freeware, they are there as well, as well as UCLA's
AIX freeware site.
Sometimes it's not the hardware or software, but the problem lies
between the keyboard and chair...
Dave
Michael Kraemer
yes, but at some point I can understand his frustration.
The state of affairs as far as freeware for AIX is concerned
leaves a lot to be desired (to be polite).
Even if some tools like gcc come as binaries,
often they are long outdated versions, in particular the stuff that comes
with IBMs CDs. Building more recent versions is even more frustrating,
because for most non-trivial apps you need a gazillion auxiliary libraries whose
AIX versions are outdated as well. A few months ago I tried to create
a more recent version of the Lyx LaTeX frontend. I finally gave up
because it needed a couple of libraries which didn't compile
and weren't available precompiled either.
gladiatr72_at_gmail.com
to be lagging in many environments. While I'm still pretty much a
newbie when it comes to AIX, on other *NIXes, I have found that even
old versions of the GNU compilers can be used to compile newer
versions. This is, at least initially, a bit time-consuming, but it
does allow one to get a development environment going on an OS whose
native compilers are in the commercial domain.
Regards,
Stephen Spencer
Adrian Bridgett
It's not too difficult to compile up the GNU tools, but there are alot
of steps required if you want something like Firefox. There also are
(or at least were) incompatibilities between gcc and xlc (Gnu C
Compiler is a darn site more obvious than whatever xlc stands for!)
Easiest to get a pre-compiled version:
http://pdslib4aix.seas.ucla.edu/aixpdslib.html
http://www.bullfreeware.com/
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/aix/products/aixos/linux/download.html
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~dtucker/openssh/
Often these are old versions (of which IBM certainly used to be the
worst offender, which for a security product like openssh is
unforgivable). The only place to get openssh from is Darren Tucker's
site (Darren ports the openssh code to AIX, adding tweaks and
enhancements when neccessary - great job!)
Of course the geninstall mess really doesn't help - whose brain dead
idea was that? Debian GNU/Linux has a similar issue - it uses .deb
files not .rpm (.debs were always far superiour and still are in many
ways). However if you really, really want to install an rpm you use
"alien" which converts the .rpm to a .deb format. Naturally you can
lose some information such as dependencies, but you are installing a
foreign package. I've also not seen geninstall track rpm/lpp
dependencies (or installshield (ewww!), or that other format which
no-one uses).
I'd actually put the blame in IBMs lap. It should not be upto the AIX
community to package these products - IBM should be doing it already to
support its customers. In over ten years I've only once discovered a
feature in an IBM tool which didn't exist in GNU (-p for grep).
Particularly when you read posts like this - Theo de Raadt is the
OpenBSD project leader (and OpenBSD develop openssh).
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openssh-unix-dev&m=114316224627520&w=2
There are hundreds of Linux distibutions out there, most of whom
automatically build packages. I'm sure UCLA and Bull have some
automation, but there doesn't seem to be sufficient community spirit to
help. If I was more of an "up and at 'em" guy I'd have given it a shot
myself several years ago, however I've now moved from AIX work to Linux
work where I don't have this struggle any more (and 99% of the time if
there is a problem there is source code I can read to fix the problem).
Shame, AIX is a darn nice Unix in many ways.
(end of IBM rant :-))
Adrian
Frank Fegert
> yes, but at some point I can understand his frustration.
> The state of affairs as far as freeware for AIX is concerned
> leaves a lot to be desired (to be polite).
> Even if some tools like gcc come as binaries,
> often they are long outdated versions, in particular the stuff that comes
> with IBMs CDs. Building more recent versions is even more frustrating,
> because for most non-trivial apps you need a gazillion auxiliary libraries whose
> AIX versions are outdated as well. A few months ago I tried to create
> a more recent version of the Lyx LaTeX frontend. I finally gave up
> because it needed a couple of libraries which didn't compile
> and weren't available precompiled either.
Program versions shipped on CD are somewhat out of date
by definition ;-) In my experience the provided RPMs have
always been usable in the provided versions. Although i
had some problems with features that weren't configured
at compile-time, so there was no way around building that
particular software from scratch :-(
One solution to the whole issue would be to set up a user
driven community project similar to http://sunfreeware.com
or http://www.blastwave.org/ in the Solaris world. With
the usage of RPM as package format and YUM even network
based installs are easyly accomplished.
Anyone interested? Anyone from IBM reading here? Maybe
IBM could be convinced to accept and incoorporate user
submitted packages. That would save one the hassle and
expenses of an own server and its traffic ...
Just my 2 cents,
Frank
Jose Pina Coelho
> [...]
> There are hundreds of Linux distibutions out there, most of whom
> automatically build packages.
for pre-reqs ?
Ain't gonna work.
Michael Kraemer
> Just my 2 cents: I have found the versions of binary software packages
> to be lagging in many environments.
well, it is of limited value to know that there
are others in the same boat :-)
On HP-UX for example, you even have to organize
the X11 headers yourself, because they don't come
with the OS distribution, AFAIK.
> While I'm still pretty much a
> newbie when it comes to AIX, on other *NIXes, I have found that even
> old versions of the GNU compilers can be used to compile newer
> versions. This is, at least initially, a bit time-consuming, but it
> does allow one to get a development environment going on an OS whose
> native compilers are in the commercial domain.
the problem not only is the lack of binary stuff,
I wouldn't mind to initiate lengthy compilation runs.
Problem is, that even the source packages aren't up to date
when it comes to AIX. The "configure" scripts sometimes
detect and use an existing IBM compiler, sometimes they
would insist on the Gnu stuff. It's totally erratic
and shows, that the sources and build procedures haven't
been reviewed by an AIX guy in ages.
Michael Kraemer
>
> Program versions shipped on CD are somewhat out of date
> by definition ;-)
yes, but if IBM manages to issue update/maintenance CDs
in a timely manner, that should be possible for the freeware
stuff as well. I seem to remember some of the 2003 "Toolbox"
stuff dates well back into the last century.
> In my experience the provided RPMs have
> always been usable in the provided versions.
Maybe your mileage varies, but I found installing
them to be a major PITA. Working on AIX, I prefer
smitty/installp and its dependency management.
No need for Linuxisms.
> Although i
> had some problems with features that weren't configured
> at compile-time, so there was no way around building that
> particular software from scratch :-(
As I said in another reply, I woudn't mind
to do so, but often the sources/build procedures are out-of-date
as well. Last experience: build of "Doxygen".
"configure" insists on having "Gnu install" instead of the IBM version
(whereas other Gnu tools don't have problems with it).
Needless to say, that I didn't have it on my system (what for ?),
so install file-utils/install first, and set a local link to it
(since I don't know the consequences overriding the IBM version).
"configure" tries to use the IBM compiler (that's fine).
However, compiles won't work with the ancient C 3.6 (some C++ source
construct not understood, hey, I always thought that stuff is standardized)
After some hours of tweaking, I finally got a somehow working version.
I'm still struggling to get the GraphViz stuff to work,
but its "configure" (this time it doesn't need Gnu install,
but insists on gcc, very consistent indeed) generates a makefile which
compiles
correctly, but fails at some link step with missing references.
Apparently I now have to find out which of the IBM libraries are
out-of-date.
AARGH.
Lesson learned: Freeware is only free, if your time has no value.
> One solution to the whole issue would be to set up a user
> driven community project similar to http://sunfreeware.com
> or http://www.blastwave.org/ in the Solaris world. With
> the usage of RPM as package format and YUM even network
> based installs are easyly accomplished.
> Anyone interested? Anyone from IBM reading here? Maybe
> IBM could be convinced to accept and incoorporate user
> submitted packages. That would save one the hassle and
> expenses of an own server and its traffic ...
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
Well, my 2 cents would be, that the two sites,
Bull and UCLA, are sufficient, if they keep the stuff current.
From IBM, I would expect that they ship up-to-date versions
of the most popular libs and headers with their update/maintenance CDs.
smitty-install them into /opt and set the appropriate links in /usr.
That would help a lot to enable rebuilds.
Frank Fegert
> yes, but if IBM manages to issue update/maintenance CDs
> in a timely manner, that should be possible for the freeware
> stuff as well. I seem to remember some of the 2003 "Toolbox"
> stuff dates well back into the last century.
Well, from what i've gathered in regard of this topic,
there seem to be legal issues or at least concerns in
this regard. That's supposedly also the reason why the
Toolbox moved to a SourceForge project.
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=6597870&forum_id=43909
"The issue with our distributing open source packages really
isn"t the building or packaging of the images; it is a legal
question. We cannot distribute open source packages -- whether
just a version update or (even rarer) a new package -- without
extensive review and approval from the legal group. So having
it built externally doesn"t help get it onto our own site, but
thanks for the offer."
Plus another thread i'm currently unable to find again
:-/
>> In my experience the provided RPMs have
>> always been usable in the provided versions.
>
> Maybe your mileage varies, but I found installing
> them to be a major PITA. Working on AIX, I prefer
> smitty/installp and its dependency management.
> No need for Linuxisms.
I think it's not a question of linuxisms, but of what
package-mgmt software fits your needs best. A co-worker
evaluated some (RPM, pkg, dpkg, ...) for our Solaris
environment. Albeit RPM is not perfect - actually far
from it - it can be argued that it's the least painful,
but YMMV.
> [...]
> AARGH.
> Lesson learned: Freeware is only free, if your time has no value.
I second your experience, free software can sometimes
be a real pain ;-) But it would be a (good) sideproduct
of a "aixfreeware" project to feed back fixes regarding
the build process to the original software projects.
From my POV that would only raise the AIX-awareness.
> Well, my 2 cents would be, that the two sites,
> Bull and UCLA, are sufficient, if they keep the stuff current.
Point taken, but have you actually looked at the Bull
page lately? If i'm not completely wrong, most of the
software is rather old. UCLA seems to be far more up
to date, offers more software and covers more AIX
versions, but suffers from the US export regulations
on cryto software and has no real package-mgmt.
> From IBM, I would expect that they ship up-to-date versions
> of the most popular libs and headers with their update/maintenance CDs.
> smitty-install them into /opt and set the appropriate links in /usr.
> That would help a lot to enable rebuilds.
That would be the ideal solution, but i somehow doubt
that IBM will go as far as for example Sun with the
integration *and* support of free software in their
Solaris 10.
I'd actually prefer a "community" driven free software
project for the AIX environment. It'd relieve IBM from
the legal and support issues. Other places (blastwave,
sunfreeware, HP-UX Porting and Archive Centre, ...)
have proven that something like this can actually work
and be kept up-to-date. Although if everyone can life
with the current situation or use of free software is
actually not that popular, it's probably better not to
bother starting.
Lets make it a poll, shall we? Anyone out there interested
in a AIX free software project (contributing, testing,
using, etc.)?
Thanks and Regards,
Frank
Wil Cooley
> Lets make it a poll, shall we? Anyone out there interested
> in a AIX free software project (contributing, testing,
> using, etc.)?
I would be. I've recently been re-rolling and updating the RPMs from
IBM and building my own from scratch or by modifying Fedora/RHEL
specfiles. In addition to updating the IBM packages, I've been
relocating them to /opt/foss instead of /opt/freeware, which I've always
thought was somewhat diminutive (not to mention more to type). I've
built GCC 4.0.2 and used that as a base, since it's rather more stable
than 3.3.2. I have, however, taken shortcuts and only built 32-bit in
many cases; not only did I not want to try to debug problems with 64-bit
POWER code, I didn't understand things like this (although I have a
better idea now):
zlib.spec:
# We just want the shared library
mv libz.a libz-static.a
/usr/bin/ar -q libz.a libz.so.1
...
/usr/bin/ar -q libz.a 64bit/%{name}-%{version}/libz.so.1
Wil
--
Wil Cooley <wco...@nakedape.cc>
Naked Ape Consulting, Ltd.
Gerhard Gonter
> On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 13:03 +0200, Frank Fegert wrote:
>>Lets make it a poll, shall we? Anyone out there interested
>>in a AIX free software project (contributing, testing,
>>using, etc.)?
>
> I would be. I've recently been re-rolling and updating the RPMs from
> IBM and building my own from scratch or by modifying Fedora/RHEL
> specfiles.
Would you even share your SPEC files in some form, e.g. by uploading
them as patches to the AIX Toolbox project's [1] patch tracking system
[2] where they can be found and downloaded? If you do not want to
interact with SF's tracking system, I offer to do that for you.
[1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/aixtoolbox/
[2] https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=128955&atid=712810
GG
Frank Fegert
> On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 13:03 +0200, Frank Fegert wrote:
>>Lets make it a poll, shall we? Anyone out there interested
>>in a AIX free software project (contributing, testing,
>>using, etc.)?
>
> I would be.
Hmm, judging from the number of responses (1), i'd guess
most of the people around are quite satisfied with the
stuff IBM and UCLA offer, or they build their own soft
from scratch, or free software isn't actually that popular
around AIX folks ;-)
> I've recently been re-rolling and updating the RPMs from
> IBM and building my own from scratch or by modifying Fedora/RHEL
> specfiles. In addition to updating the IBM packages, I've been
> relocating them to /opt/foss instead of /opt/freeware, which I've always
> thought was somewhat diminutive (not to mention more to type). I've
> built GCC 4.0.2 and used that as a base, since it's rather more stable
> than 3.3.2. I have, however, taken shortcuts and only built 32-bit in
> many cases; not only did I not want to try to debug problems with 64-bit
> POWER code, I didn't understand things like this (although I have a
> better idea now):
Yes, those things (gcc vs. xlc, paths, 32 vs. 64Bit, etc.)
would have to be clarified and standardized. At work we're
currently maintaining a - unfortunately - strictly Solaris
based RPM-environment of ~280 packages. Most of which (~140)
are Perl CPAN packages. We're keeping them up to date in re-
gard of security and new releases.
I have some AIX machines at home to use as build hosts, but
nothing newer than a B50 (PPC604e based). AIX 4.2 to 5.3
can be covered - i hope IBM doesn't drop the PPC604e in the
5.4 release ;-)
If you're interested in starting a collaborative effort,
just drop me a note!
Regards,
Frank
Hajo Ehlers
Frank Fegert wrote:
> Wil Cooley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 13:03 +0200, Frank Fegert wrote:
> >>Lets make it a poll, shall we? Anyone out there interested
> >>in a AIX free software project (contributing, testing,
> >>using, etc.)?
> >
> > I would be.
Hi Frank
I would also. Just drop me a message at ( service AT metamodul DOT com
) since i could not reach you.
regards
Hajo
ped...@gmail.com
keep up with open software technology is hurting the AIX community.
There is a new forum that has just opened up: http://aix-forums.org
It is dedicated to the AIX community. There is a forum available to
request pre-compiled versions of the open software that is needed in
the community. This may start slow but over time, the AIX community
needs to develop a more independant way of operating and growing than
always depending upon IBM or Group Bull.
There is a problem with Trojan Horses in this system. So, to start,
Ease Software, Inc. will host the downloads. Ease Software, while
maybe obscure, has been in business since 1994 and is a direct vendor
to IBM since 1995. Ease Software can not promise that the original
source will work. The open source community pretty much does that.
But it can promise that nothing was added to the source or binary
distributions. They will be just a straight compile of the original
source. We hope to offer them as installp images or RPM's if those are
more popular at this point.
aix-forums.org is just starting. We would love to have all the
comp.unix.aix community use our facility. We believe that eventually,
it will reach a wider audiance than the news groups do today.
Thank you,
Perry