We discussed it with Hans quite long time ago, so I don't remember the details, but IIRC the conclusion was to provide the forked zipios library from the flightgear package. What makes you think the situation is not that bad?

Created attachment 875958 [details]
Diff between separate and FlightCrew zipios++

Because the diff between the FlightCrew version and the separately packaged one doesn't look that bad, certainly not "modified beyond recognition". See attachment.

you missed, that FlightCrew adds zipextraction.{cpp,h}, in your diff, but otherwise it really sounds not so different ...

(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #3)
> you missed, that FlightCrew adds zipextraction.{cpp,h}, in your diff,

I actually didn't, the .cpp is elsewhere in the source tree so it naturally didn't get included in the diff, and the .h is there:

$ curl -s "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=875958" | grep zipe
Only in zipios++-flightcrew: zipextraction.h

Anyway they're complete additions, so I don't think they should count as differences per se and can continue to be included.

Created attachment 876026 [details]
use system zipios - preliminary fix

3 subtle changes are required (see top of the diff), the rest is just removal

hmm, how could we miss it ... :-) thanks Ville

(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #5)
> 3 subtle changes are required (see top of the diff), the rest is just removal

Would be more concise to do the removals with rm in the spec instead of in a giant patch... and I'll shut up now :)

(In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #6)
> (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #5)
> > 3 subtle changes are required (see top of the diff), the rest is just removal
> 
> Would be more concise to do the removals with rm in the spec instead of in a
> giant patch... and I'll shut up now :)

yes, that's the plan :-) I just wanted to record the work in progress so it's not lost. Now I'm thinking how to integrate it properly into upstream code to allow builds with/without system zipios.