Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

(n)curses problem compiling tty-only nethack on OSX 10.4

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

I've been trying to build nethack for myself on my new mac, and it
compiles and runs, but I'm having some problems with a lot of garbage
appearing on the screen when objects are thrown, or my character tries
to run or other rapid movements.

This is a fresh install, with fink added, and using the XCode tools that
came with the machine.

I tried using both -lcurses and -lncurses, in the src/Makefile, but they
both seem to have the same problem.

Anyone have any ideas why this might be happening?
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:08:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
> I've been trying to build nethack for myself on my new mac, and it
> compiles and runs, but I'm having some problems with a lot of garbage
> appearing on the screen when objects are thrown, or my character tries
> to run or other rapid movements.
>
> This is a fresh install, with fink added, and using the XCode tools that
> came with the machine.
>
> I tried using both -lcurses and -lncurses, in the src/Makefile, but they
> both seem to have the same problem.

Sorry, I won't be very much help on this subject I fear. I just
want to report that I've successfully compiled slash'em on
mac os 10.3, using ncurses.

I suppose you know that nethack comes with think, but that you
still want to compile it yourself?
Does the fink installed version of nethack run properly?
Also, for this version, I think a patch is applied before
compilation, you might want to look into that.

chlorine
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:19:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <1124133475.119165.231330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
>
>I suppose you know that nethack comes with think, but that you
>still want to compile it yourself?
>Does the fink installed version of nethack run properly?
>Also, for this version, I think a patch is applied before
>compilation, you might want to look into that.

Yeah, but I like having extra options set the way I like them. eg.
Turning off that annoying mail daemon and mail scrolls. And not having
to log in as "wizard" to use wizard mode is a big plus. Oh, and the
score on the bottom line option, etc.

It looks like nethack isn't included in the stable tree of fink for 10.4
though. :(  I'll try the unstable tonight and see.

And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
I could try that too...
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 3:55:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
> In article <1124133475.119165.231330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> >I suppose you know that nethack comes with think, but that you
> >still want to compile it yourself?
> >Does the fink installed version of nethack run properly?
> >Also, for this version, I think a patch is applied before
> >compilation, you might want to look into that.
>
> Yeah, but I like having extra options set the way I like them. eg.
> Turning off that annoying mail daemon and mail scrolls. And not having
> to log in as "wizard" to use wizard mode is a big plus. Oh, and the
> score on the bottom line option, etc.

Oh yes, I know what you mean. I've been thinking myself about
recompiling and patching nethack for some time, but I'm scared
of the work it might represent.
I hope you succeed!

>
> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
> I could try that too...

Oh my, I wasn't even aware there were sys/mac and sys/unix trees,
I have no idea which one I'm using...

chlorine
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:50:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
> I've been trying to build nethack for myself on my new mac, and it
> compiles and runs, but I'm having some problems with a lot of garbage
> appearing on the screen when objects are thrown, or my character tries
> to run or other rapid movements.
>
> This is a fresh install, with fink added, and using the XCode tools that
> came with the machine.
>
> I tried using both -lcurses and -lncurses, in the src/Makefile, but they
> both seem to have the same problem.
>
> Anyone have any ideas why this might be happening?

I did some googling.

What's your TERM environment variable? Try TERM=xterm-color if it isn't
already set that way.


CronoCloud (Ron Rogers Jr.)
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 7:02:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <1124175303.261256.5700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
>
>Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
>> In article <1124133475.119165.231330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but I like having extra options set the way I like them. eg.
>> Turning off that annoying mail daemon and mail scrolls. And not having
>> to log in as "wizard" to use wizard mode is a big plus. Oh, and the
>> score on the bottom line option, etc.
>
>Oh yes, I know what you mean. I've been thinking myself about
>recompiling and patching nethack for some time, but I'm scared
>of the work it might represent.
>I hope you succeed!

I can get it to compile well enough, but it always astounds me that
there's so much editing of various .h and makefiles and whatnot.

There are quite a few packages now that have this configure script that
detects all the oddities of one's system, and generates the makefiles
for you. Very automated. Very nice. Does anyone know how much work is
involved in making use of something like that?

>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
>> I could try that too...
>
>Oh my, I wasn't even aware there were sys/mac and sys/unix trees,
>I have no idea which one I'm using...

If you build from source, it's fairly easy to figure out. One of the
first things you set is a variable defining what sort of system you're
building for.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
August 17, 2005 2:32:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
news:D dqtbo$q19$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:

> In article <1124133475.119165.231330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>I suppose you know that nethack comes with think, but that you
>>still want to compile it yourself?
>>Does the fink installed version of nethack run properly?
>>Also, for this version, I think a patch is applied before
>>compilation, you might want to look into that.
>
> Yeah, but I like having extra options set the way I like them. eg.
> Turning off that annoying mail daemon and mail scrolls. And not having
> to log in as "wizard" to use wizard mode is a big plus. Oh, and the
> score on the bottom line option, etc.
>
> It looks like nethack isn't included in the stable tree of fink for 10.4
> though. :(  I'll try the unstable tonight and see.
>
> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
> I could try that too...

Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the like. If
you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use macs) DEFINITELY use
the mac branch. If you can't follow the install instructions download the mac
binary.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 7:25:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

[The `from' address in this post is real, but I'll never see
anything sent to it, so please don't send any mail replies. --Pat]

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
> I've been trying to build nethack for myself on my new mac, and it
> compiles and runs, but I'm having some problems with a lot of garbage
> appearing on the screen when objects are thrown, or my character
> tries to run or other rapid movements.
>
> This is a fresh install, with fink added, and using the XCode tools
> that came with the machine.
>
> I tried using both -lcurses and -lncurses, in the src/Makefile, but
> they both seem to have the same problem.
>
> Anyone have any ideas why this might be happening?

One of the notes in Install.unx describes this problem.
It sounds like you've configured the sources to expect `terminfo'
but linked with an implementation of `termcap'. Try commenting
out `#define TERMINFO' inside unixconf.h and then rebuild.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 7:50:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

chucko@nil.car wrote:

> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
>> I could try that too...
>
> Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the like. If
> you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use macs) DEFINITELY
> use the mac branch.

Why?

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
August 26, 2005 4:00:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
news:87zmr6k74s.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:

> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>
>> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
>>> I could try that too...
>>
>> Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the like. If
>> you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use macs) DEFINITELY
>> use the mac branch.
>
> Why?
>

three reasons: 1. the problems existing for the O.P. 2. OS X's not unix 3.
there is a specific branch just for macs for that reason.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:34:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

chucko@nil.car wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
> news:87zmr6k74s.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:
>
>> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>>
>>> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>>>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>>>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
>>>> I could try that too...
>>>
>>> Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the
>>> like. If you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use macs)
>>> DEFINITELY use the mac branch.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> three reasons: 1. the problems existing for the O.P. 2. OS X's not unix

Since when?


--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
August 27, 2005 1:40:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
news:873box9uzh.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:

> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
>> news:87zmr6k74s.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:
>>
>>> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>>>
>>>> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>>>>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>>>>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
>>>>> I could try that too...
>>>>
>>>> Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the
>>>> like. If you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use macs)
>>>> DEFINITELY use the mac branch.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>
>> three reasons: 1. the problems existing for the O.P. 2. OS X's not unix
>
> Since when?
>
>
Then you explain why they have a separate compile branch for it and only one
for other *nices.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:10:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <yoxNe.9340$RS.8252@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
P.D.Research <data@pactechdata.com> wrote:
>[The `from' address in this post is real, but I'll never see
>anything sent to it, so please don't send any mail replies. --Pat]
>
>Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
>> I've been trying to build nethack for myself on my new mac, and it
>> compiles and runs, but I'm having some problems with a lot of garbage
>> appearing on the screen when objects are thrown, or my character
> > tries to run or other rapid movements.
>>
>> This is a fresh install, with fink added, and using the XCode tools
> > that came with the machine.
>>
>> I tried using both -lcurses and -lncurses, in the src/Makefile, but
> > they both seem to have the same problem.
>>
>> Anyone have any ideas why this might be happening?
>
> One of the notes in Install.unx describes this problem.
>It sounds like you've configured the sources to expect `terminfo'
>but linked with an implementation of `termcap'. Try commenting
>out `#define TERMINFO' inside unixconf.h and then rebuild.

Nope. I had already done that. On a whim, I tried uncommenting the
TERMINFO derective, and it just failed to build.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:13:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <Xns96B4BD33FEC90chuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>news:D dqtbo$q19$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:
>
>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
>> I could try that too...
>
>Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the like. If
>you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use macs) DEFINITELY use
>the mac branch. If you can't follow the install instructions download the mac
>binary.

No good. The mac specific code requires the Metrowerks compiler, which
I don't have.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:15:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <Xns96BEB4862A0A4chuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
>news:873box9uzh.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:
>
>> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>>
>>> Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
>>> news:87zmr6k74s.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:
>>>
>>>> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>>>>>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>>>>>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
>>>>>> I could try that too...
>>>>>
>>>>> Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the
>>>>> like. If you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use macs)
>>>>> DEFINITELY use the mac branch.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>
>>> three reasons: 1. the problems existing for the O.P. 2. OS X's not unix
>>
>> Since when?
>>
>>
>Then you explain why they have a separate compile branch for it and only one
>for other *nices.

As I just posted in another tree, it's because the mac branch is for a
different compiler.

I've built nethack using the unix branch for older versions of OSX. But
for whatever reason, 10.4 is giving me this display weirdness.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
August 27, 2005 5:39:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
news:D eo4a6$5cd$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:

> In article <Xns96BEB4862A0A4chuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
> chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>>Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
>>news:873box9uzh.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:
>>
>>> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>>>
>>>> Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:87zmr6k74s.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:
>>>>
>>>>> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>>>>>>> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
>>>>>>> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I
suppose
>>>>>>> I could try that too...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use that mac version unless you're actually running linux or the
>>>>>> like. If you're running OS X (or whatever it's called - don't use
macs)
>>>>>> DEFINITELY use the mac branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> three reasons: 1. the problems existing for the O.P. 2. OS X's not unix
>>>
>>> Since when?
>>>
>>>
>>Then you explain why they have a separate compile branch for it and only
one
>>for other *nices.
>
> As I just posted in another tree, it's because the mac branch is for a
> different compiler.

Not really correct since (using the msdos version) msdos has the gcc and ms
compiler version whereas the unix version uses gcc as the compiler for many
unices. OS X is not unix, Unix costs money. BIG money. Linux aside getting
unix for a pc is not really cost efficient. Take a look at the cost of a Sun
system sometime and you'll see what I mean. Sure you could argue: but I can
run X windows and top. Well you can do that in NT and 2000 too, but nobody
who had any idea what they were would argue that they're unix. Sorry, I stand
by my original statement. Until someone shows me a reference to a POSIX
compatibility statement for OS X, it just ain't unix.
August 27, 2005 5:46:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

> No good. The mac specific code requires the Metrowerks compiler, which
> I don't have.

What about the binary download:
http://www.nethack.org/v343/ports/download-mac.html? I don't see why you
can't use that. Agreed about metrowerks - $500 for nethack is a bit much.
MAYBE a gcc version will be ported soon.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 6:49:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

chucko@nil.car wrote:

> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote:
>> As I just posted in another tree, it's because the mac branch is for a
>> different compiler.
>
> Not really correct since (using the msdos version) msdos has the gcc and
> ms compiler version whereas the unix version uses gcc as the compiler for
> many unices. OS X is not unix, Unix costs money. BIG money. Linux aside
> getting unix for a pc is not really cost efficient. Take a look at the
> cost of a Sun system sometime and you'll see what I mean. Sure you could
> argue: but I can run X windows and top. Well you can do that in NT and
> 2000 too, but nobody who had any idea what they were would argue that
> they're unix. Sorry, I stand by my original statement. Until someone
> shows me a reference to a POSIX compatibility statement for OS X, it just
> ain't unix.

Glad to oblige :) 

http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/MacOSX_UNIX_TB.pdf


Also note:
nethack-3.4.3/sys/mac/README
---

Note that the tiled MacOS X port uses the Qt windowport and the UNIX
build system, not this windowport code.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
August 28, 2005 3:37:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote in news:2e35u2-
8vb.ln1@bobnet.odorjan.ca:

> On 08/26/05 9:39 PM, chuck wrote:
>
>> OS X is not unix,
>
> Yes it is: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
>
>> Unix costs money. BIG money.
>
> No it doesn't: http://www.sun.com/download/
>
> --
> Chris "Bob" Odorjan - bobnet@canada.com
> BobNET - http://www.execulink.com/~bobnet/
>
>

Yeah, but the only source is the open source, none of the solaris stuff which
is why it's free - i.e. no real difference from linux.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 3:37:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 08/27/05 7:37 PM, chuck wrote:

> Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Unix costs money. BIG money.
>>
>>No it doesn't: http://www.sun.com/download/
>>
> Yeah, but the only source is the open source, none of the solaris stuff which
> is why it's free - i.e. no real difference from linux.

This would have been a better link to give: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/

Nearly all of Solaris is now open source, although I'm not sure if the
FSF considers the CDDL a "free" license. Not that it matters, we were
talking about free in the no-money sense (which Solaris 10 is), not the
GNU sense...

--
Chris "Bob" Odorjan - bobnet@canada.com
BobNET - http://www.execulink.com/~bobnet/
August 28, 2005 3:43:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

ain't unix.
>
> Glad to oblige :) 
>
> http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/MacOSX_UNIX_TB.pdf
>
>
> Also note:
> nethack-3.4.3/sys/mac/README
> ---
>
> Note that the tiled MacOS X port uses the Qt windowport and the UNIX
> build system, not this windowport code.
>
which makes your point not really relevant, but that's neither here nor
there. But however close (and based upon) it is to unix, it doesn't say it is
POSIX compliant, in fact makes allusions to the fact that it isn't. That says
to me that it isn't unix. I guess I should have said POSIX compliant in the
first place, but that's running water.
August 28, 2005 11:45:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote in news:8cm7u2-
r4d.ln1@bobnet.odorjan.ca:

> On 08/27/05 7:37 PM, chuck wrote:
>
>> Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Unix costs money. BIG money.
>>>
>>>No it doesn't: http://www.sun.com/download/
>>>
>> Yeah, but the only source is the open source, none of the solaris stuff
which
>> is why it's free - i.e. no real difference from linux.
>
> This would have been a better link to give: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/
>
> Nearly all of Solaris is now open source, although I'm not sure if the
> FSF considers the CDDL a "free" license. Not that it matters, we were
> talking about free in the no-money sense (which Solaris 10 is), not the
> GNU sense...
>

So what about the free Sun computer (I said SYSTEM not OS)? And not a
workstation either (read: smart terminal)
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:39:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 08/28/05 3:45 PM, chuck wrote:
> Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote:
>
>>This would have been a better link to give: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/
>>
> So what about the free Sun computer (I said SYSTEM not OS)? And not a
> workstation either (read: smart terminal)

I got one for free that's sitting in my basement right now. There's a
monitor and keyboard attached but they haven't been on in a few months
(while the computer has), so I figure it doesn't count as a workstation :-)

Besides, Sun sells servers starting at $1000. I could afford to get one
of those, and if I can afford to pay for something, it's not "big money".

--
Chris "Bob" Odorjan - bobnet@canada.com
BobNET - http://www.execulink.com/~bobnet/
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 10:12:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Chris Odorjan wrote:

> On 08/28/05 3:45 PM, chuck wrote:
>> Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This would have been a better link to give:
>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/
>>>
>> So what about the free Sun computer (I said SYSTEM not OS)? And not a
>> workstation either (read: smart terminal)
>
> I got one for free that's sitting in my basement right now. There's a
> monitor and keyboard attached but they haven't been on in a few months
> (while the computer has), so I figure it doesn't count as a workstation
> :-)
>
> Besides, Sun sells servers starting at $1000. I could afford to get one
> of those, and if I can afford to pay for something, it's not "big money".

Not to mention the x86 version of Solaris...

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
August 29, 2005 2:27:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

> Not to mention the x86 version of Solaris...
>

that has already been dealt with.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 6:53:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

chucko@nil.car wrote:

>> Not to mention the x86 version of Solaris...
>
> that has already been dealt with.

Not anywhere on this newsgroup that I can find. If it's been dealt with,
why are you still claiming that unix systems are expensive? I bet George
Bush admits he's wrong before you do...

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 6:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <Xns96BEDE3E7F6B0chuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>
>> No good. The mac specific code requires the Metrowerks compiler, which
>> I don't have.
>
>What about the binary download:
>http://www.nethack.org/v343/ports/download-mac.html? I don't see why you
>can't use that. Agreed about metrowerks - $500 for nethack is a bit much.
>MAYBE a gcc version will be ported soon.

Finally got around to trying it. It works, after the workaround
described in on nethack.org, but so many of the options I'm used to
(including colour!) aren't there. That's the principle reason I like to
compile it myself in the first place.

* sigh *

Well, I suppose this will hold me over when I don't have a network
connection. When I do, I can just ssh to my other machine. :)  But it
would really be nice to figure out what the deal is.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:51:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
>
>
> Finally got around to trying it. It works, after the workaround
> described in on nethack.org, but so many of the options I'm used to
> (including colour!) aren't there. That's the principle reason I like to
> compile it myself in the first place.
>
> * sigh *

Well, despite your scary problems I did give a try at compiling
nethack myself (for the same reasons than you) on mac os 10.3
and everything went smoothly. I have not noticed the problems
you mentioned, did they happen every time you tried to throw
something or just some times?

Your problem is very strange indeed. I don't remember if you said
that you had the same problem with fink's nethack? Also, I don't
think this can be a gcc version problem (I seem to recall that
this would make a difference between mac os 10.3 and 10.4)?
I used gcc 3.3

chlorine
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 11:35:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
> In article <1125481877.523184.318590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> >Well, despite your scary problems I did give a try at compiling
> >nethack myself (for the same reasons than you) on mac os 10.3
> >and everything went smoothly. I have not noticed the problems
> >you mentioned, did they happen every time you tried to throw
> >something or just some times?
>
> Every time. It would also happen when I run or use the '_' travel
> command.

OK, so I don't have this problem then.

>
> >Your problem is very strange indeed. I don't remember if you said
> >that you had the same problem with fink's nethack? Also, I don't
> >think this can be a gcc version problem (I seem to recall that
> >this would make a difference between mac os 10.3 and 10.4)?
> >I used gcc 3.3
>
> Yep, I thought of that. I built it using both gcc 4.0 and gcc 3.3, and
> they both had the same effect. I suspect it's more of a problem with
> the specific ncurses libraries than the versions of gcc I'm using.

I'm using libncurses version 5.4-20041023.

Maybe it's related to your X11? Which one are you using? (I
use apple's)

chlorine
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 12:07:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
>
> Fink only lists nethack in the unstable tree for 10.4. I haven't gotten
> around to trying that yet.

If you don't want to use the unstable tree just for nethack, which
I can very well understand, if you like I can e-mail you the package
description files for nethack. There's a .info file and a .patch
files that modifes the configuration files. I have spotted a
#define APPLE or something like that in it which may perhaps help you.

Reply here or send me an e-mail if you're interested (though I
don't know if those files would be the same for 10.3 and 10.4,
but it might be worth a try).

chlorine
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:12:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <1125481877.523184.318590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
>
>Well, despite your scary problems I did give a try at compiling
>nethack myself (for the same reasons than you) on mac os 10.3
>and everything went smoothly. I have not noticed the problems
>you mentioned, did they happen every time you tried to throw
>something or just some times?

Every time. It would also happen when I run or use the '_' travel
command.

>Your problem is very strange indeed. I don't remember if you said
>that you had the same problem with fink's nethack? Also, I don't
>think this can be a gcc version problem (I seem to recall that
>this would make a difference between mac os 10.3 and 10.4)?
>I used gcc 3.3

Yep, I thought of that. I built it using both gcc 4.0 and gcc 3.3, and
they both had the same effect. I suspect it's more of a problem with
the specific ncurses libraries than the versions of gcc I'm using.

Fink only lists nethack in the unstable tree for 10.4. I haven't gotten
around to trying that yet.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 6:55:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:

> In article <1125481877.523184.318590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> chlorine <chlorine@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Well, despite your scary problems I did give a try at compiling
>> nethack myself (for the same reasons than you) on mac os 10.3
>> and everything went smoothly. I have not noticed the problems
>> you mentioned, did they happen every time you tried to throw
>> something or just some times?
>
> Every time. It would also happen when I run or use the '_' travel
> command.

Could it be that it's just a keymap problem or something? What keyboard
settings are you using? (I don't remember exactly what your problem was).

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 10:36:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

chlorine wrote:
> Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
>> I suspect it's more of a problem with
>> the specific ncurses libraries than the versions of gcc I'm using.
>
> I'm using libncurses version 5.4-20041023.
>
> Maybe it's related to your X11? Which one are you using? (I
> use apple's)

What makes you think he uses X11 to play the tty version of nethack on
OSX?


--
If geiger counter does not click,
the coffee, she is just not thick
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:50:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

[No email replies, please.]

Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
> [...] But it
> would really be nice to figure out what the deal is.

The problem is exactly what I said before. NetHack has
been built to expect `terminfo' but has been linked with a
library which implements `termcap'. When nethack attempts to
use delays, the delay data specified in terminfo format comes
out as visible text under termcap.

You could hide the problem by enabling the `timed_delay'
option at run-time (assuming that support for it has been
compiled in--it's a configurable option), but that won't
really fix the underlying problem. There must be some other
terminal support library than curses and ncurses available
to link against.

Figuring out why nethack won't build with TERMINFO
removed and fixing that would also be worthwhile. As far as
I can recall, no one has ever reported such a problem to
devteam. I don't think any of us has an OSX 10.4 system to
experiment with.
September 1, 2005 5:17:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
news:871x4cdtja.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:

> chucko@nil.car wrote:
>
>>> Not to mention the x86 version of Solaris...
>>
>> that has already been dealt with.
>
> Not anywhere on this newsgroup that I can find. If it's been dealt with,
> why are you still claiming that unix systems are expensive? I bet George
> Bush admits he's wrong before you do...
>

I see no need to respond if you're going to take that kind of tack. I thought
it would degrade to this when you first posted to this thread, now I see my
suspicions were confirmed.
September 1, 2005 6:06:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"chlorine" <chlorine@free.fr> wrote in
news:1125481877.523184.318590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Christopher Calzonetti wrote:
>>
>>
>> Finally got around to trying it. It works, after the workaround
>> described in on nethack.org, but so many of the options I'm used to
>> (including colour!) aren't there. That's the principle reason I like to
>> compile it myself in the first place.
>>
>> * sigh *
>
> Well, despite your scary problems I did give a try at compiling
> nethack myself (for the same reasons than you) on mac os 10.3
> and everything went smoothly. I have not noticed the problems
> you mentioned, did they happen every time you tried to throw
> something or just some times?
>
> Your problem is very strange indeed. I don't remember if you said
> that you had the same problem with fink's nethack? Also, I don't
> think this can be a gcc version problem (I seem to recall that
> this would make a difference between mac os 10.3 and 10.4)?
> I used gcc 3.3
>
> chlorine
>

The OS X readme says that it CAN'T be compiled with gcc yet, Therein lies the
problem and why such errors occur I would say.
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:36:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <Xns96C4678C2CC3Echuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>
>The OS X readme says that it CAN'T be compiled with gcc yet, Therein lies the
>problem and why such errors occur I would say.

I don't see where it says that, actually. In fact, the README I see
explicitly says that the tiled version uses "the UNIX build system, not
this widowport code".

That would imply that I should indeed be able to build nethack for OSX
using gcc.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
September 2, 2005 8:33:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
news:D f73ku$nv4$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:

> In article <Xns96C4678C2CC3Echuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
> chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>>
>>The OS X readme says that it CAN'T be compiled with gcc yet, Therein lies
the
>>problem and why such errors occur I would say.
>
> I don't see where it says that, actually. In fact, the README I see
> explicitly says that the tiled version uses "the UNIX build system, not
> this widowport code".
>
> That would imply that I should indeed be able to build nethack for OSX
> using gcc.

look again. The readme in sys/mac SPECIFICALLY says that it only works with
the Metrowerks compiler. Directly from said file:


Only the Metrowerks compiler has been used to compile the code in a
long time. It is _very_ likely that the other compilers, Think C and
MPW C, will no longer be able to compile NetHack out of the box. They
and their files have been moved to the "old" directory until such time
that someone can compile with them.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 10:47:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

chucko@nil.car wrote:

> ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
> news:D f73ku$nv4$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:
>
>> In article <Xns96C4678C2CC3Echuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
>> chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>>>
>>> The OS X readme says that it CAN'T be compiled with gcc yet, Therein
>>> lies
> the
>>> problem and why such errors occur I would say.
>>
>> I don't see where it says that, actually. In fact, the README I see
>> explicitly says that the tiled version uses "the UNIX build system, not
>> this widowport code".
>>
>> That would imply that I should indeed be able to build nethack for OSX
>> using gcc.
>
> look again. The readme in sys/mac SPECIFICALLY says that it only works
> with the Metrowerks compiler. Directly from said file:

Yes, and it also says the tiled OS X version doesn't use the sys/mac tree,
it uses the sys/unix tree.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 5:51:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <Xns96C5663F15FFchuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca (Christopher Calzonetti) wrote in
>news:D f73ku$nv4$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:
>
>> In article <Xns96C4678C2CC3Echuckonilcar@207.35.177.135>,
>> chuck <chucko@nil.car> wrote:
>>>
>>>The OS X readme says that it CAN'T be compiled with gcc yet, Therein lies
>the
>>>problem and why such errors occur I would say.
>>
>> I don't see where it says that, actually. In fact, the README I see
>> explicitly says that the tiled version uses "the UNIX build system, not
>> this widowport code".
>>
>> That would imply that I should indeed be able to build nethack for OSX
>> using gcc.
>
>look again. The readme in sys/mac SPECIFICALLY says that it only works with
>the Metrowerks compiler. Directly from said file:
>
>
>Only the Metrowerks compiler has been used to compile the code in a
>long time. It is _very_ likely that the other compilers, Think C and
>MPW C, will no longer be able to compile NetHack out of the box. They
>and their files have been moved to the "old" directory until such time
>that someone can compile with them.

Okay. I will concede that I indeed missed that little footnote that's
at the very bottom, after all the release notes about some very old
releases of nethack. Perhaps that should be moved to the top of the
readme.

Nevertheless, my point is that the readme explicitly says that you can
build nethack using gcc on the mac. True, you cannot use the mac branch,
and must use the unix branch, but that is exactly what I have been
doing.
--
Christopher Calzonetti, MFCF C&O Software Specialist
mailto:ccalzone@math.uwaterloo.ca phone:+1 519 885-1211 x7516
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 12:36:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 2005-08-15 16:19:04 -0400, ccalzone@general.math.uwaterloo.ca
(Christopher Calzonetti) said:
>
> Yeah, but I like having extra options set the way I like them. eg.
> Turning off that annoying mail daemon and mail scrolls. And not having
> to log in as "wizard" to use wizard mode is a big plus. Oh, and the
> score on the bottom line option, etc.
>
> It looks like nethack isn't included in the stable tree of fink for 10.4
> though. :(  I'll try the unstable tonight and see.
>
> And yes, I know there's a patch, but I'm actually using the sys/unix
> tree, not the sys/mac tree. The sys/mac tree scares me. :)  I suppose
> I could try that too...

first, let me say that i hardly know c and that i got this to work with
the brute force methodTM

here is the patch i replaced
/sw/fink/dists/unstable/main/finkinfo/games/nethack.patch with:

http://homepage.mac.com/tomsmith/nethack/nethack343.pat...

i also had to manually place the nethack-343-src.tgz in /sw/src/ IIRC

anyway, it worked, and i got deathexplore, wizmode, paranoid,
menucolors, hpmon, and dumpfile by typing 'fink rebuild nethack'

-smitty
September 4, 2005 5:15:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote in news:639au2-
c3e.ln1@bobnet.odorjan.ca:

>
> I got one for free that's sitting in my basement right now. There's a
> monitor and keyboard attached but they haven't been on in a few months
> (while the computer has), so I figure it doesn't count as a workstation :-)
>
> Besides, Sun sells servers starting at $1000. I could afford to get one
> of those, and if I can afford to pay for something, it's not "big money".
>
>

Bull, you can't even buy a decent P.C. for a grand much less a unix system.
You MIGHT be talking about a workstation, but I specifically said NOT a
workstation and OS to boot (which means solaris FULL with all source).
September 4, 2005 5:37:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@alumni.sfu.ca> wrote in
news:87vf1karv5.fsf@alumni.sfu.ca:

> Yes, and it also says the tiled OS X version doesn't use the sys/mac tree,
> it uses the sys/unix tree.
>

Yeah, but how do you get TILES with ncurses?. Look it seems to me that the
details ofr this are not being consolidated and therefore not giving a change
for a solution to this, just a never-ending thread, so here goes: For
referals I will refer to article numbers from allnews.readfreenews.net (a
free, no password required text only newsserver that anyone with tcp/ip can
use).

In article# 303822 Chistopher first described his problem: namely getting
garbage characters on the screen with an ncurses nethack which he compiled
with gcc for the mac. I referred him to the mac branch of the source in
message# 303955 and alternatively the precompiled binary. You (Benjamin) then
replies in message# 304595 why? I then replied about os x not being posix
compliant in so many words (which was never refuted BTW). And that degraded
into yes it is, no it's not and so on. Later On I again referred Christopher
to the Binary in message# 304796, but no colour. At this point other posters
had forgotten or missed about it only being able to be compiled with the
Metrowerks compiler (still talking ncurses here). Chris mentions 3.3 and 4.0
as the versions of GCC he used in message# 305197. I would be tempted to use
2.95 (.3 I THINK??) as that is definitely stable and I have had no problem
with it at all, In fact I'm still using it (long story won't go into it
here)). After this the X11 comes up again (ncurses still). You suggest Keymap
(not replied to - perhaps not tried?). I mention that it can't be compiled
with gcc yet (again...)(message# 305301) Show the readme quote. Chris
mentions that he hadn't noticed that part Funny that: the readme is only 1420
Bytes - 3 one sentence paragraphs and 3 other short ones and the bulk of the
readme is talking about the Metrowerks compiler alone. It also says on the
top that support for 68K has been abandoned period!.


Ok enough of rehashing, I trust this can be referred to if anyone gets lost
again (I did too and I could name a couple of people that never were not if
tempers flare, but I trust It won't come to that - we're supposed to be here
to help people, not flame and spit endorphins right?????)

It does occur to me also that NO ONE has mentioned the
..nethackrc/NETHACKOPIONS for the color variable MAYBE that's the problem...
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 6:13:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 09/03/05 9:15 PM, chuck wrote:

> Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote:
>
>>Besides, Sun sells servers starting at $1000. I could afford to get one
>>of those, and if I can afford to pay for something, it's not "big money".
>
> Bull, you can't even buy a decent P.C. for a grand much less a unix system.
> You MIGHT be talking about a workstation, but I specifically said NOT a
> workstation and OS to boot (which means solaris FULL with all source).

Should I call Sun and tell them they're wrong?

http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunSt...

That's a SunFire V100, which is an UltraSparc IIi-based system, for $995
USD. Not the most powerful out there, but it's classified as an
entry-level server and it goes in a rack so you can't call it a
workstation. And Solaris 8 (which conforms to the Open Group's UNIX 98
standard and therefore gets to use the UNIX name) is preinstalled. No
sources, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't put OpenSolaris on
there...

Heh, this sounds like an ad...

--
Chris "Bob" Odorjan - bobnet@canada.com
BobNET - http://www.execulink.com/~bobnet/
September 5, 2005 4:55:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote in news:6sfqu2-
vtp.ln1@bobnet.odorjan.ca:

> On 09/03/05 9:15 PM, chuck wrote:
>
>> Chris 'Bob' Odorjan <bobnet@canada.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Besides, Sun sells servers starting at $1000. I could afford to get one
>>>of those, and if I can afford to pay for something, it's not "big money".
>>
>> Bull, you can't even buy a decent P.C. for a grand much less a unix
system.
>> You MIGHT be talking about a workstation, but I specifically said NOT a
>> workstation and OS to boot (which means solaris FULL with all source).
>
> Should I call Sun and tell them they're wrong?
>
>
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunSt...
catid=77644
>
> That's a SunFire V100, which is an UltraSparc IIi-based system, for $995
> USD. Not the most powerful out there, but it's classified as an
> entry-level server and it goes in a rack so you can't call it a
> workstation. And Solaris 8 (which conforms to the Open Group's UNIX 98
> standard and therefore gets to use the UNIX name) is preinstalled. No
> sources, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't put OpenSolaris on
> there...
>
> Heh, this sounds like an ad...
>

so it doesn't come with a monitor no OS how the heck is that a system?
!