RE: [ITP] distcc - without company disclaimer

["John Morrison" <john dot r dot morrison at ntlworld dot com>]

> From: Daniel Reed
>
> PROBLEM distcc
>
> On 2003-10-08T15:59+0100, John Morrison wrote:
>
> One thing I noticed is that the documentation appears to be primarily in
> usr/share/doc/distcc/, with copies of COPYING, INSTALL, README,
> and TODO in
> usr/share/doc/distcc-2.11.1/. I believe all documentation is
> expected to be
> in usr/share/doc/distcc-2.11.1/, but surely there should be no duplicates.

This was the standard behaviour with the method 2 script.  I know I
should customise it for the package, but I don't want to tweak it
too much - I might end up breaking it!

> Also, the package includes the *directory* usr/share/doc/Cygwin/,
> but there
> are no files in it. There should be a Cygwin-specific file either called
> distcc-2.11.1.README or distcc-2.11.1-1.README.

Again, the method 2 script created this directory.  I *really* would like
to question the requirement for a document in there - what am I going to
say that the original docs don't?  I think that that directory should be
for documents written about cygwin tools, for example cygserver/which.

I'll try and add something...

> The package also includes the directory etc/postinstall/, which is empty.
> Not a hold-up, but if you are re-packaging anyway feel free to zap it.

There will be, I plan to add a postinstall script to set it up with
(less) user intervention.

> The usr/bin/distccd.exe file has a library dependency on cygpopt-0.dll,
> which my test machine does not have. The only dependency listed in
> setup.hint is "gcc"; it looks like you might need to add either "popt" or
> "libpopt0".

Thanks, I missed that one.

> distcc.exe, distccd.exe, and distccmon-text.exe all have a dependency on
> cygwin1.dll, which should require an additional dependency on "cygwin". It
> might seem intuitive that a Cygwin package requires "cygwin", and that
> listing it is just a formality, but some packages truly might not
> depend on
> "cygwin" (such as pure-documentation packages or pure-script packages).

This has been raised before on the list, afaicr packages don't need to
list cygwin as a dependancy.  But I'll add it...

> So, in the binary package, the documentation needs to be consolidated into
> usr/share/doc/distcc-2.11.1/, a Cygwin-specific README needs to be created
> in usr/share/doc/Cygwin/, and etc/postinstall/ should probably be killed.
> In setup.hint either "popt" or "libpopt0" should be required, and "cygwin"
> should also be required.
>
> I have not reviewed the functionality. (I am unfamiliar with the distcc
> utility, perhaps someone who voted for it? :)

Thanks for the review, it *is* appreciated, but don't let your new
position as package list maintainer bully you into reviewing all proposed
packages!  If people don't step-up to vote/review, it's going to be
quite obvious that the package shouldn't be part of the cygwin distro :)

I'll try and do the changes you recommend, but I'm away for the best
part of the next fortnight, so it might be after that I'm afraid.

Thanks again,

J.