Re: [ITP] antiword-0.34

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <blytkerchan at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:16:34AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> 
> > [snip]
> > http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/antiword/antiword-0.34-1-src.tar.bz2
> > http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/antiword/antiword-0.34-1.tar.bz2
> > http://familiehaase.de/cywgin/antiword/setup.hint
> >
> > And it is not reviewed yet (IIRC).
> >
> > Would some kind soul take a quick look (it is really a tiny package
> > which compiles in a minute)?
> >
> > Gerrit
> 
> Gerrit,
> 
> I've looked at the binary and source packages.  In the binary package, is
> there a reason antiword.1 is duplicated in both usr/share/man/man1/ and
> usr/share/antiword-0.34/?
> 
> The script in the source package doesn't give you any options for partial
> make, and doesn't accept the parameters of the generic_build_script (e.g.,
> "all", "conf", "prep", "make", etc).  I don't know how important that is,
> but thought I'd mention it.
> Another, much more important thing is that the script builds files on top
> of the root filesystem (i.e., installs directly into /usr/bin, etc) --
> IMO, the source package should NOT place anything in the root hierarchy,
> that's the job of setup.exe; the source build should be contained in the
> source directory.  Because of the latter I didn't build from the source.
> Oh, and the script is not space-in-filename friendly.
I hadn't noticed that (either one: changes-to-rootfs and not-space-friendly).
I'll add it to my checklist for my next reviews :)

BTW: would it be a good idea to keep a canonical checklist for Cygwin package
candidate reviews (CCFCPCR)? This might be handy for newbie reviewers (such as
myself) and for new package maintainers to avoid common loopholes..

I'd be willing to maintain such a list, if need be.

rlc