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.
As I told you on IRC, this is like taking a Java binding or reimplementation
of Phonon and packaging it as "Amarok".
The name also fails to reflect the fact that you're only packaging the Java
version of the SDK. Given that the upstream LZMA SDK also supports C, C++
and C#, the Java one should really have "java" in the package name.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
