Bug 104314 – New ebuild and patches for making antiword work on ppc-macos

• Product: Gentoo/Alt
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Thomas Kjosmoen 2005-08-30 16:23:40 UTC]

The two patches included in this bug report will enable antiword to build on ppc-macos. The patches will 
not affect any other platform, so it should be safe to apply.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

[Comment 1 Thomas Kjosmoen 2005-08-30 16:24:42 UTC]

Created attachment 67301 [details, diff]
antiword-0.36.1.ebuild.patch

Ebuild patch.

[Comment 2 Thomas Kjosmoen 2005-08-30 16:25:30 UTC]

Created attachment 67302 [details, diff]
antiword-osx.patch

antiword patch for OS X issues.

[Comment 3 Fabian Groffen 2005-08-31 03:14:30 UTC]

I made some changes using your changes.  Please have a look at them in the
attachments I will post below.

A little list of things to look for:
1. make sure the patch patches when using epatch (the directory was one level
too 'deep' in the source tree)
2. don't patch in the src_compile function, instead patch in src_unpack
3. I prefer not to remove flags like -pedantic if this is not necesary
4. if it is possible, avoid making a conditional patch, it is easier for other
archs to test the patch if it is not conditional, as well as that it is more
obvious if a patch is always applied.  It also makes a patch more eligable to be
submitted upstream if it is not conditional...  (I think this one is)

the one and only kde USE flag is masked.  Tested on some doc files, and it
appears to work.

as ~ppc-macos in CVS

[Comment 4 Fabian Groffen 2005-08-31 03:15:31 UTC]

Created attachment 67334 [details, diff]
changes made to the ebuild

These are my changes made to the ebuild.

Thanks for your efforts, by the way.

[Comment 5 Fabian Groffen 2005-08-31 03:16:24 UTC]

Created attachment 67335 [details, diff]
antiword-0.36.1-ppc-macos.diff

My (minimal) changes made to the antiword sources to get it compiling.

[Comment 6 Thomas Kjosmoen 2005-08-31 09:19:07 UTC]

Hi,

About your list of points there:
1. It applies just fine here when the patching is done in the src_compile function, but not in src_unpack.
2. Gotcha! That most certainly is better and explains number 1.
3. I agree. I was looking at the patch that darwinports uses, and they removed the "-pedantic". Goes to 
show that one shouldn't believe everything one reads. ;-)
4. Agree.

Thanks!