VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by josch

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I have almost finished the OS/2 port of version 0.63.
Now I have two questions?
Who should receive the source code?
Should I sent patches or the whole thing?

Bye Jochen

Reply 1 of 11, by `Moe`

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

SDL changes should go to Sam Latinga <slouken@libsdl.org>, dosbox changes should be posted in the "Patches" section of http://sourceforge.net/projects/dosbox/. Create Patches against latest CVS using "cvs diff -u". Drop us a line if you need more advice 😉

Reply 3 of 11, by Qbix

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

uhm cvs add would what I use.
but not sure if that is possible on anonymouse acces.

it' would be nice if you can get it working against CVS HEAD.
It may look quite different but it's not.
altough the code of dosbox has increased/improved quite a lot since 0.63

Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!

Reply 4 of 11, by `Moe`

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Make sure you don't do too many adjustments in dosbox when they really belong into SDL. SDL is supposed to be the cross-platform interface. Since I don't know your code, I have no idea if this suggestion applies to you.

About diffing with added files: you can't "cvs add" with anonymous cvs. Check out a second tree, and use something like "diff -ruN dosbox-original dosbox-os2", then edit the resulting patch and remove all sections that don't belong to your source files (like Makefiles and these). You can add multiple options like "-x Makefile.in", "-x Makefile", ... to exclude some files automatically. It's a bit tedious, but if you save your diff command in a shell script/batch file, you need to tune this only once.

Reply 7 of 11, by josch

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Perhaps I did something wrong, but I did use -ruN. I will try it again.
SDL: No didn't change anything with SDL (I believe). I really didn't make much anyway.
CVS head: Yes I will do that, but my problem here is that the assignment, which started the whole thing wants a 0.63 version.
So I like to submit a 0.63 patch, so the OS/2 folks can use a stable release.
If that's done, I will integrate the changes into head. I really like to see the Win16 support myself 😉

Bye JoSch

Reply 9 of 11, by mirekluza

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator

Well, the description "This patch adds support for OS/2 to DOSBOX v0.63." is not the best one... It implies rather that DOSBOX now runs OS/2 (in the same way as W3.x etc.) than what you really meant - that it is possible to use DOSBOX in OS/2.

Mirek

Reply 10 of 11, by Qbix

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

patch looks good btw.
unfortunate the serial support is undergoing a rewrite by H-A-l-900
Let's hope it's compatible with your code.

Will copy/move this thread to the dosbox patches forum as well.

Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!

Reply 11 of 11, by josch

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

If the serial support changes, I will redo that. Essentially, I took the Win32 version and replaced the Win32 calls with the appropiate OS/2 calls.

BTW, do you need some binaries for the download page?

Bye Jochen