dmsmith555 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 29 05:46:59 MST 2008
Only keeping those parts of the thread to which I am responding...
On Nov 29, 2008, at 12:53 AM, Matthew Talbert wrote:
>> project and I am willing to bend over to support that effort. I used
>> to be (and sometimes, unconsciously, still am) very abrasive and my
>> sister, in her own loving way, encouraged me that "it is easier to
>> catch flies with honey than vinegar."
> While I haven't find you abrasive at all, I don't doubt your
> testimony, and am thankful for the Lord's work in your life.
>> I have advocated a repository for the sources that we use to create
>> modules along with all the scripts used to do so. My reasoning comes
>> from having majored in Biology, where all published experiments are
>> judged on their repeatability by the scientific community. Additional
>> motivation comes from the loss of primary sources, e.g. Bible
> I believe this is what people are asking for. It would help me
Again the reason we don't have such a repository is because we don't
want to become a secondary repository of primary works. We'd need to
figure out how to work around that.
I'll suggest that we use the model that Fink uses (http://www.finkproject.org
). When you install a package, it does not download a precompiled
package, but executes a script that builds the package for you.
The first part of the script (which doesn't directly pertain here) is
to build any uninstalled dependency packages. In our case, this might
mean ensuring that proper cross platform tooling is installed (e.g.
The second part of the script downloads the source from that source's
authority. Fink does not maintain any package source. For us, this
might mean a print statement that the source is not publicly available
for download and give the *specifics* on how the source was obtained.
Working with a copyright owner may preclude this step and we might
need to have this be a reference to a private file.
The last part would be the actual scripting that produced the input to
one of our module creators.
Unlike Fink, I don't think these scripts need to be maintained. I
don't think it is important that the scripts are changed when the
source's location changes. Or that the scripts are fixed when they no
I also don't advocate that this is a prerequisite to a module's
existence in the CrossWire repository.
>> When we are a primary/authoritative source for a text, CrossWire will
>> maintain it under SVN. This is the case with the KJV.
> But is it available to others via SVN? I know it can be downloaded as
> it is now, but I think it could be insightful to check the svn log for
> such a module.
The reason for SVN regarding the KJV was to checkpoint the 2003 work.
Troy asked that I not check in each minor change into it as we did the
2006 work, but only so at the end. I have forgotten to do the final
check in. :) I should do that soon, if I don't forget.
More information about the sword-devel