Proposal: psutils (again)

[Daniel Bößwetter]

Hi Volker!

I fixed the points from your mail. The new packages are available under 
the same URLs as before:

http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/psutils_cygwin/psutils-1.17-1.tar.bz2
http://home.in.tum.de/~boesswet/psutils_cygwin/psutils-1.17-1-src.tar.bz2

setup.hint now looks like this:

@ psutils
sdesc: "psutils - Postscript Utilities"
ldesc: "PSUtils is a collection of useful utilities for manipulating
PostScript documents. Programs included are psnup, for placing out several
logical pages on a single sheet of paper, psselect, for selecting pages
from a document, pstops, for general imposition, psbook, for signature
generation for booklet printing, and psresize, for adjusting page sizes."
category: Publishing
test: 1.17-1
requires: perl

The REAME now tells you how to build from source, including the fact, 
that you have to symlink the Makefile.unix to Makefile.

Best Regards,
Daniel


Volker Quetschke wrote:

> Hi!
>
> +1 for the package from here.
>
>> as seen at
>>
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-08/msg01132.html
>>
>> the psutils disappeared from the TeX-distribution and are AFAICS not 
>> yet a seperate package. The unsupported packages on Jan's site seem 
>> to be lost as well, so I compiled it from source and would (enough 
>> votes presumed) become the maintainer of the Cygwin port.
>
>
> I did a quick review, here is what I found:
>
> - Your psutils-1.17-1.patch is not patching the original Makefile
>   of the source package, but creates a new Makefile. So you cannot
>   recreate the original source by applying the reverse patch.
>
> - The setup.hint in CYGWIN-PATCHES has an "ldesc" which contains one 
> *very*
>   long line as a program description. It propably would be better to 
> split
>   it into some lines, with each line shorter than 80 characters.
>
> - The package installs some perl scripts into /usr/bin, so perl is 
> required,
>   this has to go into the setup.hint
>
> - In the psutils-1.17.README give the information needed for an end 
> user to
>   recreate the package. This includes CFLAGS settings, configure 
> parameters,
>   etc. (Even, if it's just make, make install)
>
> I'didn't test the functionality, but the package builds cleanly and 
> the layout
> of of the binary package looks ok.
>
> I'll have a deeper look at the makefile patch, once it's there.
>
> Volker
>