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 opinions
>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 RHEL 6.5:
# 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-engine-sce
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?