Have you checked whether scanning 4x actually takes a meaningful amount of time?
All valid arguments. I only wish you had taken the time to present those earlier; that would have saved a considerable amount of resources on the other end of this conversation.
I believe I can now see the full picture. I had been confused by the improper application of the term "module".
I'd suggest moving all script libraries into A/CHDK/SCRIPTS, all games into A/CHDK/GAMES, all tools into A/CHDK/TOOLS, and all the rest into A/CHDK/LIB, but that would probably be too much to ask for given reyalp's limited time.
Suppose the user doesn't want uBASIC installed (and hence doesn't want to accept its license). Does that sound like too far-fetched a scenario?
Usability issues notwithstanding, I got the following request via PM today:Quote from: anonymousCan you modify the sequence to allow user's to only accept the license agreements they need / want? So if someone doesn't accept an SDM or ML license, the installation sequence disables the ability to load those but still allows CHDK (assuming the necessary licenses for CHDK are selected).That seemed very reasonable to me. However, as I started pondering a solution, it occurred to me that none would be complete unless Lua and uBASIC are also taken into account.
Can you modify the sequence to allow user's to only accept the license agreements they need / want? So if someone doesn't accept an SDM or ML license, the installation sequence disables the ability to load those but still allows CHDK (assuming the necessary licenses for CHDK are selected).
SCRIPTS is for script code, to make it so you don't need to sort through other stuff when loading a script from the menu. Putting script engines would be counter productive. For the others, I don't really care, but I don't see any actual need to divide them up. It's like /usr/lib...
I would say yes, it's far fetched. IANAL, but as far as I understand uBASIC and Lua licenses are even more liberal than the GPL, and none of them impose any real obligation on end users beyond acknowledging that no warranty is provided. And honestly, who reads EULAs anyway?
Scripting is very much a core part of CHDK, so I am strongly opposed to allowing installs without the script engines installed. Note that PTP functionality depends heavily on Lua even if you don't want to run standalone scripts.
The following components require that their respective licenses be accepted:LuauBASICPress Yes to go back to Licenses, No to proceed, or Cancel to abort the installation.
Lua will also be a part of any installation type (save for Custom of course). As for uBASIC, I'm not sure there are too many people who are still using it.
SDM claims to be GPL, which is exactly the same as CHDK
If you're going to get fussy about license agreements then you really shouldn't be supporting SDM at all.SDM itself is a huge violation of the CHDK GPL license.Phil.
The author of SDM has been asked to provide the sources according to the terms of its license. Since he has so far only provided the sources for SDM 2.1, that's the version CHIMP will be offering to install starting with 0.9.3 and until further notice.
Started by reyalp General Discussion and Assistance
Started by tsvstar « 1 2 3 4 » General Discussion and Assistance
Started by msl General Discussion and Assistance
Started by waterwingz « 1 2 ... 5 6 » General Chat
Started by philmoz « 1 2 3 » General Discussion and Assistance
