On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> 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:
> http://crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk/INSTALL
> and scroll down to MODULE INSTALLATION SCHEME | DETAILS
Maybe the problem is that there is no centralized documentation or there
are no clear recommendations. For example Linux packagers should
collaborate and use only one scheme. It is of course nobody's fault this
has not been addressed earlier. Do we need a wiki page for packagers?
I have noticed that for me one big problem with the Sword library is
poor documentation. Look at Qt or Java documentation and you know what a
good one is. They are of course some of the best in the world and Sword
doesn't have to be as professional, but working with KDE and Qt in
BibleTime has shown me that good documentation is of primary importance.
Sometimes I just hate KDE because it is so scarcely documented. Qt has
not let me down. More than once I have looked at the KDE .cpp files to
find out how it works. It is unacceptable for productive work.
I would rather see library developers to spend a year writing good
documentation than adding new features.
Don't take this personally. I'm just pouring out my heart again.
Troy's answer does not address the module packaging issue. Probably a
good solution is already possible. We just have to find out what it is.
Yours,
Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (with no x)
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
