This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: antiword-0.34

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:

> Igor wrote about:
> [...]
> > One small problem I noticed (and this may be an upstream one) is that I'm
> > getting a "Syntax error in: '0x98 #UNDEFINED'" error when viewing a Word97
> > file with the cp1251.txt mapping.  The document then displays ok.
> > A "grep UNDEFINED *.txt" in usr/share/antiword shows
> > cp1250.txt:0x81         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1250.txt:0x83         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1250.txt:0x88         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1250.txt:0x90         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1250.txt:0x98         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1251.txt:0x98         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1252.txt:0x81         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1252.txt:0x8D         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1252.txt:0x8F         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1252.txt:0x90         #UNDEFINED
> > cp1252.txt:0x9D         #UNDEFINED
> > I think these may need to be substituted by a meaningful character (e.g.,
> > space).
> Hmm, I thought about upgrading the whole package to Unicode 4.0.
> Will talk about it to the author.

Huh?  The files are just mappings from different charsets to Unicode.
Some characters are apparently not defined in some charsets.  I don't
quite see how switching to a newer version of Unicode will allow you to
define a character *in a particular charset* that you weren't able to
define with the previous version...

> > Otherwise the package is good to go, IMO.
> >         Igor
> Hey, Daniel, there were three votes and a positive review, lets push it
> on the mirrors;-)
> > P.S. The script creates the distribution tarballs only, which is rather
> > annoying.  Is there a particular reason you didn't want to use the
> > generic-build-script?
> In my opinion it is overkill for a small package when there are just
> some files to compile or no compilation (e.g. perlscript help2man).
> I have hacked the script to compile a package just to deliver it to
> myself and then I thought, hey, why not include this little package in
> the netrelease?  Usually you're right, I should use the
> One-Script-Fits-All generic script and the generic readme.
> And I decided to upgrade to the OSFA for the next release.
> Gerrit

One advantage of the generic-build-script is that it allows partial
actions (e.g., "prep", then "conf", then "make", and you're ready to

BTW, in your script, you could use "ln -fs" instead of "rm -f ...; ln -s".
      |\      _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]