[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Module dependencies

[Jonathan Marsden]

Peter von Kaehne wrote:

>> Apt-get gets into the way and for no good reason.

> It gets in the way in a multitude of ways
> 
> 1) it destroys the flexibility of the module manager by partially
> sidelining it (or even rendering it powerless)

(i) That is not apt-get or the packaging doing that, it is the inability
of the module manager to deal with some default module locations
specifically *recommended* by the Sword documentation that causes that.

(ii) In what way is the module manager more flexible than using
Debian-style packaging?  We have capability for system-wide installs of
packages, for caching of downloaded packages to save bandwidth,
(apt-proxy and similar tools), use of DVDs and CDROMs for distribution
of packages, use of DVDs and CDROMs and other read-only filesystems for
module data locations, and use of an existing very well known standard
package management system and set of package management tools in the
Debian/Ubuntu community.  Does your module manager do all this, and add
further flexibility too?  Please explain.  (And if it does do all that,
why would apt-get be getting in its way, as you claim it is?!)

> 2) it favours some of our modules (those freely distributable) versus
> some which are not so free.

Yes, just as the *entire* Debian/Ubuntu world "favours" free software
over merely redistributable software, and favours even that over
proprietary closed software; this tendency to prefer that which is free
is *entirely* to be expected within the community we are packaging for.

> To state this very bluntly - I rather have GS, libsword and BT not in
> Ubuntu and Debian than having our modules partially packaged and
> partially not.

Then why did you ask for help getting your software packaged?  If you
want all your modules packaged by this team, then please get their
copyright owners to make their (currently non-free) data available under
appropriately free licences, and they will all (eventually?) get
packaged.  No problem!  Are you or your organization the copyright owner
of any of this non-free data, BTW?

If, OTOH, you are trying to use the people of the "free" Debian and
Ubuntu world to support some sort of closed commercial endeavour
involving proprietary closed data that people pay you for on a per-user
basis... well, good luck with that scheme!

> If this is the case that the modules "need" to be packed, then I think
> we are better off by having a "private" but well publicised
> Debian/Ubuntu compatible repository.

Sure, you are certainly free to use whatever module packaging tools I
create to package up non-free modules, modifying then to suit your
specific needs, and then to make those proprietary packages available in
your own repository (not a PPA, I'm sure you have read the agreement
about what you can put into packages in a PPA).  I'm not intending to
make my tools non-free, and I doubt anyone else here wants to make stuff
they contribute non-free either!  So absolutely, you can go ahead and do
that for the non-free data if you like, no problem there.  That might be
a reasonable way forward, actually.  It would also be a way to add new
modules that come into existence to those available via apt, without
waiting for the next Debian release.

Can we please wait until my module2deb script actually works at least
more-or-less right, before we start planning on your using it to convert
a pile of proprietary modules? :)

Jonathan