[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Module packaging, distribution, and management

[Peter von Kaehne]

Jonathan Marsden wrote:

>> I am assuming nothing. The module manager can install from any location,
>> including CD's, USB sticks, network drives or whatever.
> 
> "From" anywhere... but not "to" anywhere?  What exactly is the issue it
> has with modules placed by Debian packages into /usr/share/sword/, which
> is a module location officially recommended by current Sword
> documentation (see the INSTALL file from the sword-1.5.11 tarball)?

To anywhere it has the permission. It is up to the administrator to give
people the permissions or use himself sudo and the installmgr. The
mechanism is there, it is safe and it is explicit. If you think a
request to have called sudo on gnomesword would be useful, by all means
file a bug or enhancement request. But your way around via the package
manager is not correct. It subdivides the available texts and creates
obstacles in people's minds towards making content available/using
available content from other sources.

And we are not taking about evil corporations making a quick profit but
about self written mini commentaries (see Gnomesword) and other
material, people found as being available (PD) and making it available
electronically. Stuff which will never realistically make Debian, nor
should it (not for policy/license reason but for reasons of required effort.

>>>> It is not data like a game episode (a la Wesnoth).
> 
>>> Actually, I think this one is fairly close -- they contain information
>>> in a non-standard data format, data without at least one set of which
>>> the application is useless... this is a pretty good comparison, IMO!  In
>>> what sense are Sword modules "not data"?
> 
>> This one is indeed the closest. But it still does not apply.
> 
> You make a statement here, without any supporting evidence or comment;
> that is just a bare assertion, which is by definition not persuasive.
> Are you willing to back up your assertion?  Or answer my earlier
> question 'In what sense are Sword modules "not data"?' ?

They are texts, humanly readable texts (even if zipped and indexed).

They are meant - at least in part - to be downloaded, read and discarded
again. Not involving an admin at least for personal installs. Some of
them are meant to be worked on singly or collaboratively (see gnomesword
"prayer lists" and user generated "commentaries" and the general option
of given by the personal and group commentary module) Latter content is
meant to grow and become more numerous. Using the package manager
mitigates againts this as editing into a package is obviously wrong. And
Debian/Ubuntu packaging the "Personal Commentary" is just that.

Wesnoth game data files are presumably not for any more or less direct
human consumption nor for editing mid game. They are static and not user
editable. Wesnoth data files have a single frontend, Sword modules have
2 different separate libraries providing alternative access routes (at
the moment only one gets packaged via Debian) and a few dozen of
frontends. SWORD modules can be produced by anyone and distributed via
any repository. We want to encourage people making content available and
not discourage it by putting obstacles in the way.

The single best comparison is not Wesnoth but Project Gutenberg. Debian
is distributing Gutenbrowser without distributing their tens of
thousands of books, nor the millions of other books theoretically
accessibly to gutenbrowser. So why here?

>> If the admin installs the modules then there is no difference between
>> apt-get and module manager in accessibility
> 
> Really?  Is the admin really commonly running GnomeSword (for example)
> as root?  On Ubuntu?  I would find that very surprising.

Is this the way you would solve this problem? Ouch. Then I can
understand your fear of having the module manager running the show.

I would simply use  'sudo installmgr' from the command line.
Installation of modules on a shared basis is a sysadmin act and should
go via sudo.

For the majority of ubuntu users this is essentially a irrelevancy as
they will be single user systems. You are welcome to file a bug against
GS or BT to have a admin user calling sudo to allow systemwide installation.


>>> I would like to read the full design documentation for the "elaborate"
>>> module manager, including the set of use cases for it that were
>>> considered before it was implemented.  Does such documentation exist,
>>> and if so, is it publically available?  If so, please provide a URL to it.
> 
>> http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not going to read the entire archive of a mailing list to
> weed out the design documentation for one part of its API; we have
> weeks, not years, before the Ubuntu Jaunty deadline, and I'd rather be
> doing packaging work for this team!  Can you provide a somewhat more
> specific pointer, please?  Or are you saying that no such documentation
> exists other than the source code?

Well if you are not willing to read then I can not help you. I would
suggest that you have no business in this matter than.

Incidentally I have read Debian annd Ubuntu policy files and I have
found nothing suggesting that your plan is remotely within their policy.

This is not perl, not Latex, not Firefox. It is a set of programmes
which load and display texts in a mildly obscure format. Not different
to evince in that matter.

Do you have a link I have missed?

Peter