[pkg-crosswire-devel] Fwd: sword-comm-mhc_2.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Roberto C. Sánchez]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 03:36:51PM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote:
> 
> The downside of packaging the CrossWire modules is that they are not very
> good at keeping their source updated to the same version that is published
> as binaries on their FTP server. Also, the copyright information is
> sometimes inaccurate, which is the case with the MHC module. Lafricain has
> improved the situation a lot compared to what it was.
> 
> I think, the baseline for our modules should be to meet Debian Policy. Two
> of them will be autoremoved if the source does not appear in the next two
> weeks, and I think that is okay.
> 
> For the other modules, there are still #985655 and #985656, which are
> actually also Policy violations and could have a higher priority. I do not
> have experience of converting USFX/USFM to OSIS/Sword and there are several
> programs out there that do that. The affected modules' source eBible uses
> Haiola, but I think having that in Debian just for this reason will be too
> much work. So, alternatively we could package usfm2osis (which version?) or
> u2o. Any thoughts on this?
> 
There is definitely an established pattern for packaging installer or
helper scripts that perform the download, unpacking, etc. of components
which for some reason cannot be directly packaged.  The msttcorefonts
installer package is one that immediately comes to mind, but there are
others.  This might be a good alternate approach, for providing modules
and content in a system-wide way that is at least visible through the
apt infrastructure.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez