[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Packaging Sword modules

[Jordan Mantha]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Speaking officially for CrossWire community, this is how we want it. We
>> do not want the modules to be distributed in another fashion. Please
>> honor our wishes.
>>
>
> I guess that sums it up.

I guess it does. I had no idea CrossWire felt that way. I've packaged
up several modules in the past and nobody has come to me before.
Perhaps it's because I just joined the list but I'm feeling a bit
blindsided by this.

> Following being told that it is against Debian's policy to not package
> modules I looked up Debian's and Ubuntu's policy books. Both are silent
> on the matter.

Yeah, it certainly isn't a policy violation, but I think it's quite
useful for users to be able to install texts the same way the install
the software itself.

> The sum total of his email was that it would be nice for any kind of
> document processing/viewing programmes to have something in the
> repositories that could be installed and Debian is not too keen to have
> things which are  useless without external material. That clearly does
> not amount to policy.

Right.

> But even if it did it would not affect CrossWire's + associates' lot: As
> it stands between bibledit's sword export,  Gnomesword's prayer lists,
> BT and GS's personal commentary and the sword commandline tools the
> programmes are in essentially the same position as a word processor -
> even if nothing is distributed along with it, a user could theoretically
> (or practically) create their own content. Hence the need to distribute
> anything along with it for policy reasons does not exist.

For policy reasons no, for convenience or other reasons perhaps.

> So it boils down to
>
> a) are there any use cases for module distribution in deb form which can
> not be satisfied by distribution of relevant modules in other form?

I think there are. For instance, as I've already said, Ichthux was
able to have some amount of localization support on it's CD by
packaging up modules for various languages and hooking up with
Ubuntu's installer language-pack support system. I think it was a
really nice implementation and something that set sword apart from a
lot of other apps.

I think the case for having CD that has Bible software preinstalled
and not requiring internet access is a good one, even if it's not a
majority of users.

> b) if there are no such use cases, are there any reasons beyond "We
> can", why the modules should be debbed up?

People very rarely packages stuff up just because "we can". We are
trying to provide a service to users. Sometimes that service can end
up duplicating somewhat services that upstream authors set up. For me
personally, my goal has never been to supplant or take away from
CrossWire's other ways of distribution, but rather to add another way
of getting to the great work that has been done.

> Wrt a) nothing convincing has been told. A CD distribution of e.g.
> Ubuntu CE could perceivably come along with a module repository - no
> need for it to be debbed up. The module manager is well quipped to
> install from CD. Scripting a locale sensitive selection of modules is
> equally possible from both sources (debs or zipped modules). Finally, a
> person who carries around Ubuntu CE CDs can also carry around SWORD CDs.

Debian/Ubuntu based installation systems generally don't just include
arbitrary files. They are specifically designed to deliver content via
packages (.deb files). Artwork, documentation, system settings, etc.
are all done this way so it's very natural for us to use packages to
deliver sword texts.

I'm sure you could script a local sensitive selection (that would be a
cool feature addition) but that doesn't help the person without an
internet connection much. It essentially makes it impossible for
distributions like Debian/Ubuntu to officially include and sword
content. And sure, one can carry around a SWORD CD, but they could
also care around a single Ubuntu CE or Ichthux CD and have it as well.
For us packaging up sword modules isn't mandatory, it's not "because
we can", it's to provide a hopefully better experience for our users.

> Wrt b) no reasons beyond "we can" and "look what a cool tool we have"
> have been stated so far. So it boils down to a "because we can". Yes you
> can. But we ask you not to for reasons we have adequately explained. End
> of story really. Do you respect our wishes or do you wish to go your own
> way?

I don't think it's ever been "because we can". CrossWire "is an
organization with the purpose to sponsor and provide a place for
engineers and others to come and collaborate on free, open-source
projects aimed at furthering the Kingdom of our God." We've tried to
get the fruits of that effort to our users the best way we can. I do
think the onus is on CrossWire to explain to us why we shouldn't be
allowed to distribute free and open-source software that helps spread
the Bible around the world. The onus is most certainly not on us to
justify packaging such software.

I certainly don't mind a good conversation about how we can best work
together to help people get the Bible on their computers, but I've
honestly been a little shocked and saddened by this "cease and desist"
attitude. I think it's pretty counterproductive and just raises
tensions that don't need to be there. We all, I believe, have the same
goal of spreading the Good News to our neighbors and enabling
Christians to further their faith. This isn't a "us and them" thing,
this is a group of people with common goals trying to figure out the
best way to help others.

-Jordan Mantha

P.S. I'm just speaking as an individual here, others in Debian/Ubuntu
may disagree.