[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications

On 22:00 Mon 14 Jan     , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> > I did some more investigation and I don't see any file name clash
> > betweek zim from zim-wiki and zimlib. Even though both packages have zim
> > in the package name there is  description field which clarifies any
> > confusion between both packages for end user.
> > 
> > So I guess renaming from upstream is not required. Please share your
> > thoughts.
> My thoughts are "I have been confused and thus I believe that other users
> will be confused in the future". This is why I believe it's best to
> rename. Furthermore, there are no file clashes yet, but the day
> where someone will write a python wrapper for "zimlib" (and this is
> on the roadmap apparently), it might become a real issue.

OK thanks for sharing your views on this, apparently I didn't think of
python wrapper for zimlib.

@Kelson can you share your views on this.

> That said, I'm not here to impose anything to anyone. I just wanted
> to inform you so that both upstream are aware of the potential conflict
> and so that they can handle it properly.

Yes I understood that and thanks for bringing it up :-).

Warm Regards
Vasudev Kamath
Connect on ~friendica: copyninja@{frndk.de | vasudev.homelinux.net}
IRC nick: copyninja | vasudev {irc.oftc.net | irc.freenode.net}
GPG Key: C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4  C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: