On 5/6/14, 4:35 AM, Simon Lukasik wrote:
On 05/01/2014 08:31 PM, Shawn Wells wrote:
>>> >To express my subjective opinion I like the idea of the project to be
>>> >renamed to "OpenSCAP Security Guide". But wanted to know wider
>>> >from the community on the potential translation.
>> I think it's not necessary to rename the projects themselves.
>> However I am all for promoting the OpenSCAP "umbrella" and cross
>> linking the projects. Renaming the projects would be very costly and
>> confusing for existing users. The benefits aren't worth it IMO.
>> In my opinion scap-security-guide should stay as is because
>> openscap-security-guide implies a tool lock-in which is not the case.
> Jan, thank you for starting this conversation! I'm _*very*_ much in
> favor of a unified umbrella/naming.
> As sgrubb pointed out, OpenSCAP has classically been the interpreter. If
> we rename SSG to "OpenSCAP Security Guide," the name creates an
> impression the content would only work with OpenSCAP. For this reason,
> are you proposing we change the OpenSCAP interpreter as well? e.g.:
> OpenSCAP: A portfolio of open source SCAP utilities and content, which
> * OpenSCAP Workbench: Used for tailoring content (formerally
> * OpenSCAP Interpreter: A cross platform, open source SCAP
> * OpenSCAP Content: An open source project delivering a
> large body of SCAP content. Used as upstream for such profiles as the
> STIG and C2S
> * OpenSCAP Anaconda Plugin: A project to integrate SCAP
> scanning into Linux provisioning
> * OpenSCAP Spacewalk Plugin: A project to integrate
> centralized SCAP scanning into the Spacewalk/Satellite system management
I like this idea.
However, I am afraid we are not able to enforce openscap package
rename everywhere to ensure consistent look. OpenSCAP library is
spread across to many downstreams. That leads me to conclusion that
perhaps we don't need to rename the downstream packages. Perhaps, we
can just leverage this idea to better describe ecosystem to newcomers.
Having a 90% solution is better than none; I see no harm if the OpenSCAP
library package remains an outlier. As Greg pointed out, the impact of
any change could be made over time (e.g. perhaps RHEL7).
Today downstream already follows the openscap-* naming scheme, e.g. from
# yum search openscap
firstaidkit-plugin-openscap.noarch : OpenSCAP plugin for FirstAidKit
openscap-devel.i686 : Development files for openscap
openscap-devel.x86_64 : Development files for openscap
openscap-engine-sce.x86_64 : Script Check Engine plug-in for OpenSCAP
openscap-engine-sce-devel.x86_64 : Development files for
openscap-perl.x86_64 : Perl bindings for openscap
openscap-python.x86_64 : Python bindings for openscap
openscap-utils.x86_64 : Openscap utilities
openscap.i686 : Set of open source libraries enabling integration of
the SCAP line of standards
openscap.x86_64 : Set of open source libraries enabling integration of
the SCAP line of standards
openscap-content.x86_64 : SCAP content
openscap-content.noarch : SCAP content
openscap-extra-probes.x86_64 : SCAP probes
Formally changing "SCAP Workbench" to "OpenSCAP Workbench," or SSG to
"OpenSCAP Content" seems acceptable.
One catch is that RHEL already has a package "openscap-content." Perhaps
we could absorb the name? Or would this cause issues?