Bug #1769
[unar]: duplicate packages in community and libre
0%
Description
$ pacman -Ss unarchiver
libre/unar 1.10.1-8.1
unar and lsar: Objective-C tools for uncompressing archive files
community/unarchiver 1.10.1-3
unar and lsar: Objective-C tools for uncompressing archive files
the PKGBUILD for 'unar' in libre1 is identical to the PKGBUILD for 'unarchiver' in archlinux community2 - other than that the one in libre replaces, conflicts, and provides 'unarchiver' and 'unrar'[3]
the blacklist has 'unar' as a libre replacement for 'unrar' but does not mention 'unarchiver'[3]
unrar:unar:fsf:unrar:[nonfree][FIXME:description]the missing description is not helpful here - 'unar' is clearly the 'unarchiver' program and not 'unrar' - so how does this qualify as a libre replacement?
arent the packages in libre supposed to be modified versions of some problematic program in arch? and not merely an unmodified alternative
so shouldnt 'unar' just be a new package in PCR ? and the 'unrar' simply be blacklisted with no libre replacement because that program is not actually used
secondly the obvious, why are there two distinct packages available for the same program, with two different names, and especially when the one in libre 'replaces' the other?
[1]: https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/plain/libre/unar/PKGBUILD
[2]: https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/plain/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/unarchiver
[3]: https://git.parabola.nu/blacklist.git/tree/blacklist.txt#n840
History
Updated by brainblasted almost 6 years ago
why are there two distinct packages available for the same program, with two different names, and especially when the one in libre 'replaces' the other?
IIRC unarchiver is a recent addition to the Arch repos. Previously it was in the AUR, but packages have begun to move away from unrar, meaning there was a need for unarchiver in the repos.
Updated by bill-auger almost 6 years ago
yes but that answers only first, least interesting question - if that were the only question i would not have bothered to open this issue
it is maybe a subtle point so just to underline - what i am trying to resolve is that the 'unar' package is listed in the blacklist as replacing the 'unrar' package - but those are not the same software - that would explain the different name but that would not be considered to be a replacement but a completely unrelated alternative - i would really like to see the blacklist data be as informative and helpful as possible - this particular example is more confusing than helpful - the blacklist descriptions should all read something like: "the parabola version of this program was liberated in the following ways ...." in which case the parabola package lives in libre and usually has the same name as the non-free package - or it should read: "parabola did not liberate this package but the following alternative is recommended instead ...." with the alternative package having a different name and noted only in the description but not in the metadata column#2 as a definitive liberated replacement
secondly, the PKGBUILD also has it replacing the 'unarchiver' which was presumably in the AUR - but that would not explain the different name because it is exactly the same program - it furthermore is not modified in any significant way from the upstream so therefore does not belong in libre but instead in PCR
thirdly and most importantly, because it replaces the 'unarchiver' package then the 'unarchiver' package should not be available in pacman at the same time
Updated by Megver83 over 5 years ago
- Status changed from open to fixed
I removed the unar package from abslibre and [libre], and wrote a news about
https://www.parabola.nu/news/unar-being-replaced-by-unarchiver/
I'm closing this thread