[sword-devel] single-user vs. multi-user installations, modules and packaging (Re: [Gnomesword-developers] a bug?)
Troy A. Griffitts
scribe at crosswire.org
Sat Sep 22 15:05:01 MST 2007
Sorry for not being clear in my last email... This all seem to be a
training issue. :)
I meant to say you (or a frontend) can ALREADY drop your own .conf file
in your ~/.sword/mods.d directory for each user and it will override
your globals. You don't need one per module. One file is fine:
SWORD has a ton of module configuration possibilities. It is way too
complex already. If someone is complaining that things can't be
configured per user nicely, then they don't understand all the options
available to them.
They should at least read:
and scroll down to MODULE INSTALLATION SCHEME | DETAILS
I just updated the wording a bit.
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, DM Smith wrote:
>> I'll bite. I read the thread and I see several things being brought up:
>> 1) Multi-user installs of modules.
>> As I see it, the rpm or deb has a problem in that it is not managing
>> permissions correctly. My suggestion is that the global sword area
>> have group permission of "sword" and the administrator of the machine
>> adds people to the sword group if they have permission to do installs.
>> Further, how many setups are multi-user installs where someone does
>> not have enough savy to make the permission changes?
> I would think about the "nontechies". Nowadays many computer illiterate
> people use Linux. Installing the software package should "just work".
> On the other hand more skillful users would be annoyed if all modules,
> indices etc. would be per-user only.
>> 2) Distribution of modules via a Linux distribution.
>> Many modules have something to the effect that "Copyrighted;
>> Permission to distribute granted to Crosswire" These cannot be
>> distributed by this means.
>> Each Linux distribution would need to get it's own permission for
> Very good point.
>> 3) Globally stored unlock keys.
>> This may be a violation of the license agreement that accompanied
>> the unlock key. I don't see any reason to support it.
>> In a separate thread Troy suggested a separate conf file that the
>> config manager would read. This can be maintained on a per user basis
>> in ~/.sword.
> I think the sword library should have an API for saving and getting the
> key. Frontends would be responsible for providing the user interface
> only. In that way the library would decide the best solution.
>> Whatever means is used, it should work for BibleTime, GnomeSword and
>> BibleDesktop on the same machine.
> Definitely yes. But how about Mac and Windows? Both can have multiple
> users with their own accounts, right?
> Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
> e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel