[To reply replace "Aaron.Sloman.XX" with "A.Sloman"]
cglur@onwe.co.za writes:
> Date: 8 Feb 2001 19:18:45 GMT
>
> Well,
> with much effort, I've installed poplog.
Glad to hear it. I apologise for not answering your earlier question,
on account of pressure of work (including proceeding slowly through
a pile of MSc end of term Pop-11 project reports).
You asked:
> Date: 4 Feb 2001 22:56:46 GMT
> Organization: The South African Internet Exchange
>
> Peter Buchlovsky pointed to Andrew Sayers' page
> > I'm mostly interested in trying to make Poplog a little more happy
> > running under Linux.
>
> Any simplification is welcome, but how does this relate to:
> bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/new/INSTALL_LIKE_BHAM ?
>
> Is it a refinement ?
> I expect/hope that if I 'INSTALL_LIKE_BHAM', I'll be more compatible
> as I advance ?
The main general purpose very messy installation guide is included in
the tar files and in this file, along with the copyright notice.
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/new/install.txt
It has been badly in need of revision for some time.
The INSTALL_LIKE_BHAM script was intended to be for people who want
a version of poplog that has the Birmingham add-ons including saved
images that we use, e.g. with rc_graphic and rclib and objectclass all
pre-compiled. This is needed for our students who install poplog at
home.
It was written to be easily usable (after little editing) not only on
linux machines but also solaris, digital unix, etc., on the
assumption that poplog was installed in
something like
/usr/local/poplog/v15.53
with local extensions in
/usr/local/poplog/local
By contrast Andrew Sayers' files were designed for linux users, and
aimed to fit in better with the (or a, since they are not all the same)
linux philosophy. I have not looked at his files, and cannot comment on
them, as I am not an experienced linux person.
The others have been used with various minor modifications to install
poplog on PC+linux, on Sparc+Solaris and on Digital Alpha+Digital Unix.
But they all need rewriting to make things more automatic e.g. with
automatic creation of log files instead of user having to do
install > install.log
or whatever.
I have recently broken INSTALL_LIKE_BHAM, which originally installed
both poplog and the extensions, into two bits, which may have happened
after you fetched it. The first bit installs poplog, and the second
installs our local extensions (assumed to have been fetched as tar.gz
files).
And there are now two versions of the first bit, depending whether
you've fetched poplog with motif or poplog without motif.
So first bit:
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/image-scripts/INSTALL_NOMOTIF
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/image-scripts/INSTALL_MOTIF
And second bit is
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/image-scripts/INSTALL_LIKE_BHAM
(and is run automatically by the first bit, if it exists). It uses this
to install individual packages in the local subdirectory:
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/image-scripts/install_package
which assumes a standard way of creating pop-11 packages, to which most
of the things in the Free Poplog directory conform e.g. bhamteach.tar.gz
rclib.tar.gz popvision.tar.gz. The newkit.tar.gz is slightly more
complex as it combines sim.tar.gz (SimAgent) and prb.tar.gz
(Poprulebase).
INSTALL_LIKE_BHAM also creates additional saved images, providing all
the stuff our students use, as mentioned above, one for starting pop11
and one for starting pop11 in Xved.
It was not really intended for general use since not everyone will want
the Birmingham extensions. However later on I would like to package some
of those extension in the standard poplog distributions, e.g. the new
pattern prefix "!" which allows pop-11 pattern variables to be lvars.
> After I've rested I'll document my experience with
> INSTALL_LIKE_BHAM plus Andrew's patches.
>
> Is this syntax correct ?
> zcat $tardir/linux1553.tar.gz | tar xf -
For installations that include the gnu version of tar (all linux systems
I think) you can simplify that to
tar zxf $tardir/linux1553.tar.gz
But it can't be assumed on all unix platforms. The effect of both is
the same.
> Files are not plain ascii eg.
A decision was taken by the Poplog development team and the commercial
distributors some years ago to extend the editor Ved to handle a special
format which showed up "nice" graphical characters, e.g. with bold and
colours.
This had the consequence that documentation files that were previously
readable in ANY text editor could only be read easily in Ved. By then I
was no longer part of the poplog development team. I think that decision
was a mistake, but it does make the files look much nicer for Ved/Xved
users.
You can view such files using the Unix/Liunx "more" or "less" commands,
but in most editors they look like rubbish.
There is an emacs extension emacs.tar.gz which allows emacs to interpret
the graphic characters.
Alternatively they can be completely removed from all the documentation.
I did that and produced "stripped" copies of the documentation in the
distribution directory, in the doc/ subdirectory and in the
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/docdirs.tar.gz
file (about 5.7Mbytes).
(Alas some of these are slightly out of date versions by now. I need to
rebuild that lot....)
I did not want to strip everything by default since that would
degrade poplog for Ved users!
The "stripped" documentation files that have had their special
characters removed do not work quite as well as those that were produced
with the more primitive older Ved documentation tools (which are the
only ones I ever use, so my Birmingham documentation files never need
to be stripped, and they all work as they are for emacs users).
If you want to strip the files so that you can read them in any
editor, I think this command will do it:
$popsrc/newpop -nolink -noinstall -indexes -stripdoc
which should at most take a few minutes on a modern machine.
But then all the graphic characters will be gone forever.
Alternatively try to get to know Ved and use it and only it to
access the documentaiton (though you can use the unix "grep" command
to do searches etc, which I do frequently), and as mentioned above you
can read the files using "more".
Alternatively strip individual files you want to be able to read
(or print) without running Ved thus:
$popsys/basepop11 %noinit $popliblib/stripvedfile [ -o <outfile> ] <file>
If you don't use the -o <outfile> option, the file itself will be
changed.
I have not used this recently.
Aaron
> $usepop/pop/help/index
> $usepop/pop/ref/system
> $usepop/pop/help/initial
>
> What editor do they 'want' ?
> ved ? = visual editor ?
> Calling ved starts pop11.
> How to better (than plain ascii) view such files ?
>
> install.txt has typo:
> You can leave pop-11 by typing CTRL-D, (or "bye).
> CTRL-D is OK.
>
> Setpop
> : eliza();
> ;;; DECLARING VARIABLE eliza
>
> ;;; MISHAP - enp: EXECUTING NON-PROCEDURE
> ;;; INVOLVING: <undef eliza>
> ;;; DOING : pop_setpop_compiler
> ?? perhaps some links missing ??
>
> Thanks,
> Chris Glur.
>
====
Aaron Sloman, ( http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/ )
School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
EMAIL A.Sloman AT cs.bham.ac.uk (ReadATas@please !)
PAPERS: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/cogaff/
FREE TOOLS: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/poplog/freepoplog.html
|