Re: unrar version confusion
On 5/27/05 9:16 AM, "Steve Langasek" <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Approved.
>
> 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?
Sorry about the delay. I spoke to Jeroen in irc when the NMU first happened
and I appreciate the changes. As I discussed with him, I had been
considering requesting a similar change but hadn't determined how to go
about doing it (I've also been extremely busy with personal issues).
Everything he proposed and that you've discussed in the bug/thread is fine
with me.
Reply to: