[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rawhide report: 20090627 changes



On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> From my perspective, I am not convinced about the impact of the
>> disaster this package name will create. So far we didn't have SevenZip
>> in Fedora.
>
> We did have the real 7-Zip, the portable version is called p7zip. 7-Zip is
> the name of a Window$ application, both GUI and command-line (which we
> don't have and will never have), the POSIX command-line-only port (which we
> do have) being called p7zip.
>
> What the "SevenZip" package contains is something which internally calls
> itself SevenZip for some reason, but which doesn't even support 7z files
> (by itself – it's possible to implement 7z based on it), is a library with
> no user interface and isn't called SevenZip anywhere you'd look for a
> package's name (the tarball, which is what you're supposed to look at for
> the name in most cases according to our packaging guidelines, is
> called "lzma" + the version, the web page calls it "LZMA SDK"). If you do a
> Google search for "SevenZip", almost all the links are for the application,
> not the Java SDK. The first hit I get is the 7-zip.org front page.
>

That is because of the algorithm the search engine uses.

> As I told you on IRC, this is like taking a Java binding or reimplementation
> of Phonon and packaging it as "Amarok".
>

I agree. However many java libraries we have have such special names.
Do a "yum search java |grep -v java"
As I said before in an email java guidelines do not require a prefix
in the name.

> The name also fails to reflect the fact that you're only packaging the Java
> version of the SDK.

The java version of the lzma SDK is called SevenZip by its upstream.
So SevenZip is not a far shot for the package name.

> Given that the upstream LZMA SDK also supports C, C++
> and C#, the Java one should really have "java" in the package name.
>

As I said in the IRC, I was totally fine with the names java-lzma,
java-lzma-sdk, ... (even though there is no such requirement for a
prefix)  to the same amount that I am fine with the name SevenZip. I
will change the name and resubmit a review request if I receive
complaints regarding a confusion from users. For the time being, I
just didn't find it worth the effort to make a change in the name.

Honestly, I couldn't think of a scenario where this package name will
break some system.

Orcan

PS: Is this really so important?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]