[UnixOS2] OpenOffice

[John Poltorak]

Does anyone know of anyone looking at getting the source for OpenOffice
compiled on OS/2?

[Andrea Venturoli]

Post by John Poltorak
Does anyone know of anyone looking at getting the source for OpenOffice
compiled on OS/2?

Like Innotek?
They've released a couple of betas? Or do you mean something different?

bye
av.

[John Poltorak]

Post by Andrea Venturoli

Post by John Poltorak
Does anyone know of anyone looking at getting the source for OpenOffice
compiled on OS/2?

Like Innotek?
They've released a couple of betas? Or do you mean something different?

What Innotek have done is provide a way of running the Windows port of
OpenOffice on OS/2.

What I would like to see is a native port which is not dependent on some
middleware like Odin.

Post by Andrea Venturoli
bye
av.

[S***@t-online.de]

Post by John Poltorak
What I would like to see is a native port which is not
dependent on some
middleware like Odin.

Since it's using a GUI toolkit which doesn't support PM (any more),
that's something you can forget about.... :-(

It won't get better than using either Odin (Windows version)
or XFree ("recompiled/ported" Linux version).

Regards,
Stefan

[John Poltorak]

Post by S***@t-online.de

Post by John Poltorak
What I would like to see is a native port which is not
dependent on some
middleware like Odin.

Since it's using a GUI toolkit which doesn't support PM (any more),
that's something you can forget about.... :-(

Is it the same GUI toolkit that was used in Star Office v5.1? Could it be
added back?

Post by S***@t-online.de
It won't get better than using either Odin (Windows version)
or XFree ("recompiled/ported" Linux version).

Unless it get ported to wxWindows ;-)...

Incidentally could it be built for XFreeOS/2 ?

Post by S***@t-online.de
Regards,
Stefan

[S***@t-online.de]

Post by John Poltorak
Is it the same GUI toolkit that was used in Star Office
v5.1? Could it be
added back?

I think so. Probably with some extensions and
additions, though. And AFAIK, even the OS/2
version of the Toolkit used for StarOffice
v5.1 is not available anywhere.

Post by John Poltorak

Post by S***@t-online.de
It won't get better than using either Odin (Windows

version)

Post by S***@t-online.de
or XFree ("recompiled/ported" Linux version).

Unless it get ported to wxWindows ;-)...

Even then, the PM version of wxWindows would
require quite some work to offer everything
needed/used by OpenOffice.

Post by John Poltorak
Incidentally could it be built for XFreeOS/2 ?

No idea, what X-Toolkit it is using. If it's
e.g. OpenMotif or GTK-2 (as opposed to e.g.
lesstif and GTK-1), we'd have to start with
"porting" the toolkit to XFreeOS/2 (and we
would have a licence issue in the case of
OpenMotif). If everything used by OpenOffice
is already available, it might be possible
to port it to OS/2 within a couple of weeks
of working time and a couple of months of
compilation time.

But I fail to see, what advantage do you see
in such a version over the Odin based version
that's already available?

Regards,
Stefan

[John Poltorak]

Post by S***@t-online.de

Post by John Poltorak
Is it the same GUI toolkit that was used in Star Office
v5.1? Could it be
added back?

I think so. Probably with some extensions and
additions, though. And AFAIK, even the OS/2
version of the Toolkit used for StarOffice
v5.1 is not available anywhere.

I'm sure someone must have a copy somewhere ;-)...

Wasn't it developed in Germany? If so, it wouldn't surprise me if someone
on this list was involved in working on it at some time.

Post by S***@t-online.de
But I fail to see, what advantage do you see
in such a version over the Odin based version
that's already available?

Cost.

There is also the question of it really being open source and community
supported. Currently we are dependent on the whims of Innotek and how long
they may maintain an interest in OS/2.

Open Office and Mozilla are two of the most important apps from the open
source world, and I think it is important to be able to build both on
OS/2.

Post by S***@t-online.de
Regards,
Stefan

[S***@t-online.de]

Post by John Poltorak

Post by S***@t-online.de
version of the Toolkit used for StarOffice
v5.1 is not available anywhere.

I'm sure someone must have a copy somewhere ;-)...
Wasn't it developed in Germany? If so, it
wouldn't surprise me if someone
on this list was involved in working on it
at some time.

Well, it never was open source ...

Post by John Poltorak
There is also the question of it really being open source
and community
supported.

Both Odin and OpenOffice _are_ OpenSource,
aren't they?

Post by John Poltorak
Currently we are dependent on the whims of
Innotek and how long
they may maintain an interest in OS/2.

Even for the compiler ... :-(

Regards,
Stefan

[Steve Wendt]

Post by S***@t-online.de
Both Odin and OpenOffice _are_ OpenSource,
aren't they?

Odin and OpenOffice are, yes. However, the "OS/2 Kit" for OpenOffice,
while using mostly Odin code, is not.

[Sebastian Wittmeier]

Post by S***@t-online.de
No idea, what X-Toolkit it is using.

It seems they are using pure X11.
And that is perfectly supported on OS/2!

Sebastian

[John Poltorak]

Post by Sebastian Wittmeier

Post by S***@t-online.de
No idea, what X-Toolkit it is using.

It seems they are using pure X11.
And that is perfectly supported on OS/2!

So what is stopping anyone trying to build it?


Now wouldn't EverBlue enable X apps to run under PM?

I have no idea how far EverBlue got, but in theory, wouldn't that route
provide a path to getting a native PM version without any PM support in
the source?

Post by Sebastian Wittmeier
Sebastian

--
John

[S***@t-online.de]

Post by John Poltorak

Post by Sebastian Wittmeier

Post by S***@t-online.de
No idea, what X-Toolkit it is using.

It seems they are using pure X11.
And that is perfectly supported on OS/2!

So what is stopping anyone trying to build it?

Time and space constraints?
The source code doesn't fit onto my hard disk
and build time is rumoured to be in the range
of days rather than minutes ...

Regards,
Stefan

[John Poltorak]

Post by S***@t-online.de

Post by John Poltorak

Post by Sebastian Wittmeier

Post by S***@t-online.de
No idea, what X-Toolkit it is using.

It seems they are using pure X11.
And that is perfectly supported on OS/2!

So what is stopping anyone trying to build it?

Time and space constraints?
The source code doesn't fit onto my hard disk
and build time is rumoured to be in the range
of days rather than minutes ...

80 GB disks are becoming common these days, and with fast processors which
some people have they may be able to build it quicker. I'm sure a build
could simply be left running until it finished.

I wonder if there is any scope for parallel development as in some SETI
type project...

Would this be a good opportunity to develop a DCE environment?

Post by S***@t-online.de
Regards,
Stefan

[S***@t-online.de]

Post by John Poltorak
I'm sure a build
could simply be left running until it finished.

The problem is, it typically will stop with
an error message within 5 minutes once you
leave it alone...
I.e. I'd expect that quite some OS/2 specific
fixes would be required to make it work...

Post by John Poltorak
Would this be a good opportunity to develop a DCE
environment?

DCE?

Regards,
Stefan

[Sebastian Wittmeier]

Post by John Poltorak
Now wouldn't EverBlue enable X apps to run under PM?
I have no idea how far EverBlue got, but in theory, wouldn't that route
provide a path to getting a native PM version without any PM support in
the source?

Yes, it would. Everblue is still under development, but until that we
could run OpenOffice on XFree86/2.
The later switch would be easy, since Everblue and XFree are perfectly
(binarily) compatible.

Sebastian

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

Stefan,

Post by S***@t-online.de

Post by John Poltorak
What I would like to see is a native port which is not
dependent on some
middleware like Odin.

Since it's using a GUI toolkit which doesn't support PM (any more),
that's something you can forget about.... :-(

This is not correct. Source code of OpenOffice versions 1.0.2 and 1.1rc3
includes OS/2 branch of the code. Most likely code is there in more
recent versions as well.
That code was not updated for a long time (since September 2000) but
I think that it is possible to resume development of native OS/2 version.

If to be more realistic, development and support of such a project is
not a simple task and I suspect it is too big for a spare time project.
It's enough to say that unpacked sources of 1.1rc3 consumes about 600Mb
of disk space.

Regards,
Sergey.

[John Poltorak]

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Stefan,

Post by S***@t-online.de
Since it's using a GUI toolkit which doesn't support PM (any more),
that's something you can forget about.... :-(

This is not correct. Source code of OpenOffice versions 1.0.2 and 1.1rc3
includes OS/2 branch of the code. Most likely code is there in more
recent versions as well.
That code was not updated for a long time (since September 2000) but
I think that it is possible to resume development of native OS/2 version.

I'm sure that a number of people would be interested in seeing a native PM
version.

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
If to be more realistic, development and support of such a project is
not a simple task and I suspect it is too big for a spare time project.
It's enough to say that unpacked sources of 1.1rc3 consumes about 600Mb
of disk space.

Do we have the necessary tools to be able to build it? I heard that
DMAKE v4 was a requirement, but we have that now.

Is there a reference to building it from source?

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Regards,
Sergey.
--
*---------------------------------------------

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

John,

Post by John Poltorak

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
I think that it is possible to resume development of native OS/2 version.

I'm sure that a number of people would be interested in seeing a native PM
version.

As I said, I think that native OO/2 does not look like spare time project
but rather a full time job for a skilled team of developers.

Post by John Poltorak

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
If to be more realistic, development and support of such a project is
not a simple task and I suspect it is too big for a spare time project.
It's enough to say that unpacked sources of 1.1rc3 consumes about 600Mb
of disk space.

Do we have the necessary tools to be able to build it? I heard that
DMAKE v4 was a requirement, but we have that now.
Is there a reference to building it from source?

I've not tried to build it and I suspect that OS/2 branch of the build
infrastructure can be damaged (just because it is outdated) but makefiles
and other relevant files are there along with sources.

Regards,
Sergey.

[Christian Hennecke]

Post by John Poltorak
I'm sure that a number of people would be interested in seeing a native PM
version.

You are correct, and a short time before Innotek announced their plans,
some OS/2 users joined and started investigations what a native port
would cost. IIRC their intention was to hire a group of Russian
developers, and they even found some. The project would have had to be
founded by users. But when Serenity, Innotek and what's-their-name (you
know, those who apparently are not involved anymore) announced their
plans, they effectively killed the aforementioned project off.

I very much doubt that you would find enough people to fund an
OpenOffice port to XFree86/OS2 and later maybe EverBlue. To most it's
just as "non-native" as Odin. So, as the whole thing is very likely
more than what can be handled as a spare-time project of a few
developers, the chances it will ever become reality are extremely slim.
Unless Innotek doesn't manage to solve the printing problems many seem
to experience, that is.

Christian Hennecke

[John Poltorak]

Post by Christian Hennecke
I very much doubt that you would find enough people to fund an
OpenOffice port to XFree86/OS2

Who is to say it actually needs porting?

If it just uses X11 it might build straight out of the box. Unlikely, I
know, but building Unix apps on OS/2 has become much easier in recent
years.

Post by Christian Hennecke
Christian Hennecke

[John Poltorak]

Greetings.

Post by John Poltorak

Post by Christian Hennecke
I very much doubt that you would find enough people to fund an
OpenOffice port to XFree86/OS2

Who is to say it actually needs porting?

AFAIK, problem is build system, not code itself.
OOo build system requires up to date GCC, and STL port.
Now Innotech released up to date version of the GCC,
but STL port is not ready yet (VAC version exist, but
no GCC version).

Where do I find the old STL port?

--
http://www.sra.co.jp/people/akira/index.html
chigasaki-minami, tsuzuki ward, yokohama, japan

[Akira Hatakeyama]

Greetings.

Post by John Poltorak

Post by Christian Hennecke
I very much doubt that you would find enough people to fund an
OpenOffice port to XFree86/OS2

Who is to say it actually needs porting?

AFAIK, problem is build system, not code itself.
OOo build system requires up to date GCC, and STL port.
Now Innotech released up to date version of the GCC,
but STL port is not ready yet (VAC version exist, but
no GCC version).

Post by John Poltorak
If it just uses X11 it might build straight out of the box. Unlikely, I
know, but building Unix apps on OS/2 has become much easier in recent
years.

X11 version would be first step for the OS/2 native version.
But still build system/tools are major problem of OS/2 port.

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

Akira,

Post by John Poltorak
Who is to say it actually needs porting?

AFAIK, problem is build system, not code itself.
OOo build system requires up to date GCC, and STL port.
Now Innotech released up to date version of the GCC,
but STL port is not ready yet (VAC version exist, but
no GCC version).

Recent versions of GCC have STL included and I doubt that OO requires
more that just STL. But even if this is true, GCC version of STLport
also exist. I think that GCC is one of the "main" compilers for the
STLport developers. So most likely there is no problems with OO build
tools under OS/2.

Regards,
Sergey.

[John Poltorak]

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Recent versions of GCC have STL included and I doubt that OO requires
more that just STL. But even if this is true, GCC version of STLport
also exist. I think that GCC is one of the "main" compilers for the
STLport developers. So most likely there is no problems with OO build
tools under OS/2.

Has anyone actually tried to build it on OS/2?

It would be useful to catalogue any errors encountered.

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Regards,
Sergey.
--
*---------------------------------------------

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

John,

Post by John Poltorak
Has anyone actually tried to build it on OS/2?

If you mean OO then I don't know. I've just looked into sources,
but not tried to build it.

Regards,
Sergey.

[S***@t-online.de]

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Recent versions of GCC have STL included and I doubt that
OO requires
more that just STL. But even if this is true, GCC version
of STLport
also exist.

Template instantiation might be a problem with
STL/gcc on non-ELF platforms? But I suppose
the worst that will happen is that the
executable just gets unreasonably big/
compilation time gets unreasonably long, iff
the same stuff is instantiated over and over
again.

Regards,
Stefan

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

Stefan,

Post by S***@t-online.de

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Recent versions of GCC have STL included and I doubt that
OO requires
more that just STL. But even if this is true, GCC version
of STLport
also exist.

Template instantiation might be a problem with
STL/gcc on non-ELF platforms? But I suppose
the worst that will happen is that the
executable just gets unreasonably big/
compilation time gets unreasonably long, iff
the same stuff is instantiated over and over
again.

As far as I know, there is a workaround for this in current
port of GCC, but I didn't tested how effective it is.
At least compilation of applications such as AStyle
gives very reasonable executable size (about 160K after LXLite).

Regards,
Sergey.

[Andreas Buening]

Post by S***@t-online.de
Template instantiation might be a problem with
STL/gcc on non-ELF platforms? But I suppose
the worst that will happen is that the
executable just gets unreasonably big/
compilation time gets unreasonably long, iff
the same stuff is instantiated over and over
again.

-fno-implicit-templates or -fno-implicit-inline-templates
will tell you. ;-)


Bye,
Andreas

[S***@t-online.de]

Now Innotech released up to date version of the GCC,
but STL port is not ready yet (VAC version exist, but
no GCC version).

Sorry? Normally, STL is part of GCC distribution, no need to port
anything...
If gcc works, STL does automatically work
as well.

Regards,
Stefan

[Neil Waldhauer]

Now Innotech released up to date version of the GCC,
but STL port is not ready yet (VAC version exist, but
no GCC version).

I tested the Standard Library features of GCC for compliance with ISO ANSI C++
by compiling the examples from Advanced C++. The Innotek port complies with the
standard. I guess if you need support for the now-deprecated STL, then STLPort
is the way to go.

Neil

Neil Waldhauer ***@blondeguy.com www.blondeguy.com
Expert consulting for OS/2 and eComStation

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

Christian,

Post by Christian Hennecke
You are correct, and a short time before Innotek announced their plans,
some OS/2 users joined and started investigations what a native port
would cost. IIRC their intention was to hire a group of Russian
developers, and they even found some. The project would have had to be
founded by users. But when Serenity, Innotek and what's-their-name (you
know, those who apparently are not involved anymore) announced their
plans, they effectively killed the aforementioned project off.

In fact I did review of OO sources exactly for this purpose.

Post by Christian Hennecke
I very much doubt that you would find enough people to fund an
OpenOffice port to XFree86/OS2 and later maybe EverBlue. To most it's
just as "non-native" as Odin. So, as the whole thing is very likely
more than what can be handled as a spare-time project of a few
developers, the chances it will ever become reality are extremely slim.
Unless Innotek doesn't manage to solve the printing problems many seem
to experience, that is.

Well, I think that XFree86 port of OpenOffice is less interesting than
native PM version.

Regards,
Sergey.

[John Poltorak]

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Well, I think that XFree86 port of OpenOffice is less interesting than
native PM version.

That may be true, but building an X version as a prototype would provide
invaluable experience and might show whether a PM app was feasible.

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Regards,
Sergey.
--
*---------------------------------------------

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

John,

Post by John Poltorak

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
Well, I think that XFree86 port of OpenOffice is less interesting than
native PM version.

That may be true, but building an X version as a prototype would provide
invaluable experience and might show whether a PM app was feasible.

I don't think that building X version will be simpler than PM version.
It should be kept in mind that OO is not "yet another Unix app",
it came from OS/2 and Windows world and dependencies such as "OS/2 assumes PM"
and "Windows assumes Win32" might be built in the depth of the project.
From the other hand, I agree that we can't be sure and can't get relevant
experience without trying.

Regards,
Sergey.

[Sebastian Wittmeier]

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
If to be more realistic, development and support of such a project is
not a simple task and I suspect it is too big for a spare time project.
It's enough to say that unpacked sources of 1.1rc3 consumes about 600Mb
of disk space.

For those that want to give it a try nevertheless, here is a quickstart
http://ooo.ximian.com/hackers-guide.html

Sebastian

[Sergey Yevtushenko]

Sebastian,

Post by Sebastian Wittmeier

Post by Sergey Yevtushenko
If to be more realistic, development and support of such a project is
not a simple task and I suspect it is too big for a spare time project.
It's enough to say that unpacked sources of 1.1rc3 consumes about 600Mb
of disk space.

For those that want to give it a try nevertheless, here is a quickstart
http://ooo.ximian.com/hackers-guide.html

Thanks. It might be really helpful.

Regards,
Sergey.

[Dave Yeo]

Post by John Poltorak

Post by S***@t-online.de

Post by John Poltorak
What I would like to see is a native port which is not
dependent on some
middleware like Odin.

Since it's using a GUI toolkit which doesn't support PM (any more),
that's something you can forget about.... :-(

Is it the same GUI toolkit that was used in Star Office v5.1? Could it be
added back?

IIRC IBM asked Sun to remove all the OS/2 code before open sourcing StarOffice.

Post by John Poltorak

Post by S***@t-online.de
It won't get better than using either Odin (Windows version)
or XFree ("recompiled/ported" Linux version).

Unless it get ported to wxWindows ;-)...
Incidentally could it be built for XFreeOS/2 ?

In theory this would be the easiest way to go.
Dave