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
That is because of the algorithm the search engine uses.
As I told you on IRC, this is like taking a Java binding or
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.
PS: Is this really so important?