[bug#52109] [PATCH] gnu: Add unrar-free.

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Donnerstag, dem 12.01.2023 um 18:07 -0500 schrieb Leo Famulari:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 09:29:09PM +0100, Liliana Marie Prikler
> wrote:
> > Now, I hope I'm not exaggerating when I say that most computer
> > users use libarchive-based (un)archiving tools already. [3]
> > Having observed this, I see little meaning in having a frontend,
> > which per its name promises to open archives that their existing
> > tooling can't handle, only to then reveal that it was the existing
> > tooling all along.  If it didn't have the name that suggested it
> > was able to do that, no one would expect it to, and upon
> > encountering an archive that libarchive can't handle, they could go
> > "well, fuck those rar guys, I have better things to do", or they
> > could try and figure out what's wrong and contribute a fix (not
> > that a fix is easily contributed given the nature of this bug, but
> > somewhere along their journey they'd notice that rar is proprietary
> > garbage and not fault libarchive too hard for not handling it). 
> > Because unrar-free does have a name that suggests it's able to
> > unrar those things, however, they will inevitably feel wronged no
> > matter what and rather think "well, fuck unrar-free, I want
> > unrar-nonfree".
> 
> In order to understand your points better, I'd like to summarize them
> in my own words. Please tell me if I get it wrong.
> 
> Your objections to the inclusion of this package are that:
> 
> 1) We already have a package with equivalent functionality
> 2) The name of this package, unrar-free, might lead users to choose a
> nonfree program due to similarity. Concretely, the nonfree program is
> called "unrar".
> 
> Is that correct?
For the equivalence relation of "both being able to open the same
archives", yes.  Obviously, unrar-free has a different CLI – that's is
whole shtick, after all – but I'd argue that this doesn't matter,
because the people who prefer CLI over GUI know how to read manpages.

Cheers