Bug#654984: libav: Please use a less confusing package name

[Reinhard Tartler]

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Guillem Jover <guillem at debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 19:03:23 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Guillem Jover <guillem at debian.org> wrote:
>> > Package: libav
>> > Version: 4:0.8~beta1-2
>> > Severity: wishlist
>
>> > There's now a libav binary package in experimental, which ffmpeg
>> > transitions to (due to the upstream change). The thing is that I
>> > initially got pretty confused by the name, and on a quick glance
>> > thought it was a metapackage for the shared libraries(!).
>> >
>> > In any case given our current conventions naming a tools/utils package
>> > libfoo seems pretty confusing in general, and I'd not expect to find
>> > those there. Could you consider renaming the package to something like
>> > avtools, avutils, or similar maybe? Although the second might not be a
>> > good choice as it could be confused to be related exclusively to
>> > libavutil.
>
>> Would 'libav-bin' or maybe 'libav-tools' be better?

Then let's go with 'libav-tools', unless someone objects that is.

>
> Yeah definitely, that also occurred to me just immediately after having
> sent the bug report.
>
>> I'm not really convinced by 'avtools' and 'avutils', as both seem
>> pretty generic to me.
>
> Right, I even checked for similarly named packages previously on the
> archive, but I guess I was misremembering something else, also googled
> and there seems to be quite a bit of avtools or avutils.
>
>> 'libav' was chosen to follow the name change of the project
>> 'ffmpeg'->'libav'.
>
> Sure, I understood the logic after the first “shock”, but I did not find
> it compelling. :)

I have to agree I wasn't too convinced by  the name myself, but
'ffmpeg' is definitely no longer acceptable after renaming of the
tools.


-- 
regards,
    Reinhard