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

Re: unrar version confusion

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 02:36:50PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:41:11AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > - rename the unrar-nonfree package back to unrar
> > - rename the free unnrar package to unrar-free (it can even be left out 
> >   of sarge (version 0.0.1 that is the one year old latest upstream 
> >   version...))
> > - get the non-free package that is again named unrar back into sarge

> I've done the first point, neglecting the second point for now, and the
> third point is an RM decision.

> My rationale to do this, is:

> - woody shipped with a non-free unrar named 'unrar', and it worked
> - the free version is not functionally equivalent yet, of the .rar files
>   in the wild, I couldn't actually find a single one that was
>   unpackeable with the free unrar.
> - So, it's too late now to have sarge ship with a free alternative,
>   because development of that one simply hasn't reached a functionally
>   (nearly-?) equivalent version. For etch, let's see, but for sarge,
>   let's just maintain the situation as it was in woody: a non-free
>   'unrar' for people not objecting to non-free who want to unrar files.

> Once the free unrar matured enough, it can probably ultimately replace
> unrar (again), but until that time, I really do believe the free unrar
> should be named differently until that point is reached. I offer my
> assistance to get this happening again because of what I've done to
> unstable at the moment.

> RMs, please review unrar-nonfree 1:3.5.2-0.1, restoring a new version of
> the unrar that was in woody to sarge.


I had rather hoped to see some feedback from the current unrar-nonfree
maintainer about this package name change, though.  Chris, is this NMUed
change ok with you?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: