[sword-devel] modules for debian
Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:05:34 -0000
On 29 Jan 2001, at 16:18, Trevor Jenkins sent forth the message:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Daniel Glassey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I'm trying to sort out exactly which modules would be considered as
> > core and would be necessary for a base install of sword. Not every
> > module can be in Debian, just a few, so we need to decide which
> > ones.
> I don't understand the reason for the Debian restriction. Some general
> licencing with the modules' material or a Debianism?
Resources. The Debian archive is mirrored all over the place and it is
unreasonable take up a large portion of the distribution with just our
data. This is to actually get it to be part of the distribution not just
to make packages.
> What about other
> Linux distributions, e.g. RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE; subject to the same
I'd assume so though I don't know if anyone has tried to get them in.
> > These are my thoughts:
> I have radically different thoughts
fair enough :)
> > KJV - it's standard (~2.2MB, less without Strongs ref.)
> > 1 more modern translation - WEB (~1.4MB)
> The AV I can livest without thank thee muchly.
> Certainly a readable modern translation should be core.
I'd agree, they are just hard to get hold of in a freely distributable
> Personally I'd like the CEV failing that the
> NLT or the NET(*). Maybe the ISV or GW.
Well, they would need to be made into sword modules first!
> That is a translation is mandatory but nothing else. I don't think one
> should specify which translation is core. Just that at least one must be
> present for correct insttallation and operation. I might, for example,
> only want a Swedish translation without any English text at all.
Yep, that's a problem, but I doubt more than 1 will get in. All others
will be at crosswire (theres currently a conversion of all the rpms on
the crosswire site at
) and people can be directed to them.
> > Personal commentary - so you can write notes (~40k)
> is highly desirable. And might necessarily be considered core.
> The following are essential "nice to haves" but certainly shouldn't be
> considered "core" modules.
> > 1 commentary - Matthew Henry Concise (~1.4MB)
> > Strongs references - Standard greek and Hebrew references (~800k)
> > Dictionary - Eastons or Naves or both (~1MB and ~700k)
I was thinking that it would be good to have 1 of every type of
module just to show what it does. I guess though that personal
commentary may be enough, and Strongs is a bit irrelevant without a
> Perhaps a reading scheme might be included with these essentials. The
> Navigators publish on (as a PDF file, a Word document, and, if I recall
> correctly, as Palm and Outlook calendar updates). My preference is for
> "Through the Bible Every Day in One year" but unless it has recently
> appeared in on-line format there's only printed versions available. (A
> check of http://cover2cover.org/ later will tell me one way or the other.)
> Or lectionary. The new Church of England Lectionary for "Common Worship"
> isn't yet available on-line.
That kind of thing would be good, though I'm not sure how it fits in
with the module types. A 'calendar' type of module might be good.
There is already the losung stuff (currently dictionary type) and
there could be Spurgeons morning and evening as well.
Thanks for your input :)
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com