gutcheck : NEW

[oksmith77]

I'm attaching an archive for new port for a Project Gutenberg Plain-text Checking Program.

The program is used to validate ebooks for submission to Project Gutenberg.

I'm no MacPorts guru so maybe I made the installation method more complicated than it needed to be. However, it works for me.

If you have any questions, please ask ASAP because I'm going on vacation!

Thanks.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

I'm uploading a new version of this portfile with these changes:

• ​Added the modeline
• Reformatted / reindented a little, including changing tabs to spaces and removing trailing whitespace (see "port lint --nitpick")
• Added license keyword
• Since the distfile name does not contain the version number, I added "dist_subdir ${name}/${version}" to avoid checksum errors later
• Used "extract.mkdir yes" instead of reimplementing it
• Simplified post-extract by using "xinstall -W"
• Removed "use_configure yes"; that is the default
• Changed post-destroot so documentation files go in ${prefix}/share/doc/${name}

I'm not committing it yet because I'm concerned about the number of files you propose we put in the files directory, including a 164K configure script. (Granted that's not a terribly large file, but certainly many times the size of a typical portfile, and the portfile and files directory gets transferred to every MacPorts users machine, regardless of whether they have any interest in gutcheck or not.) Where did these files come from? Why is upstream not providing them if they are necessary? Could we get by without them? I will admit having a configure script does make it easier for the port to build universal and for other build_archs. But do we really need all those other files? empty text files? If we could generate the configure and Makefile.in by using "use_autoconf yes" for example that would be better.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

modified portfile

[oksmith77]

I am back from vacation and am in complete agreement with your concerns.

gutcheck doesn't come with any kind of a configuration script--it's just a plain old C files as far as the Mac is concerned--so all those extra files come from autoconf/automake. The empty files irritate me too. But that's autoconf/automake.

I am happy to rework the Portfile.

I am sure there are other ports that are just plain C files and MacPorts manages to install them. Could you please refer me to a port that you think is a good example? I'm sure I can figure out the rest.

I look forward to your reply.

Thanks.

Replying to ryandesign@…:

I'm uploading a new version of this portfile with these changes:

• ​Added the modeline
• Reformatted / reindented a little, including changing tabs to spaces and removing trailing whitespace (see "port lint --nitpick")
• Added license keyword
• Since the distfile name does not contain the version number, I added "dist_subdir ${name}/${version}" to avoid checksum errors later
• Used "extract.mkdir yes" instead of reimplementing it
• Simplified post-extract by using "xinstall -W"
• Removed "use_configure yes"; that is the default
• Changed post-destroot so documentation files go in ${prefix}/share/doc/${name}

I'm not committing it yet because I'm concerned about the number of files you propose we put in the files directory, including a 164K configure script. (Granted that's not a terribly large file, but certainly many times the size of a typical portfile, and the portfile and files directory gets transferred to every MacPorts users machine, regardless of whether they have any interest in gutcheck or not.) Where did these files come from? Why is upstream not providing them if they are necessary? Could we get by without them? I will admit having a configure script does make it easier for the port to build universal and for other build_archs. But do we really need all those other files? empty text files? If we could generate the configure and Makefile.in by using "use_autoconf yes" for example that would be better.

[oksmith77]

new minimalistic version with simple Makefile

[oksmith77]

I have attached a new archive that doesn't use the 164K configuration script.

It uses the smallest Makefile I could come up with.

If there is a better way to do this, then please let me know. I am happy to try again.

Thanks.

[chrstphrchvz (Christopher Chavez)]

Is there still interest in adding a port for this?