Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Le 20/01/2013 06:20, Vasudev Kamath a écrit : 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. What about libopenzim as package name, content unchanged? Emmanuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote: What about libopenzim as package name, content unchanged? Looks reasonable to me. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Hi Raphael, Kelson
On 10:14 Sun 20 Jan , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
What about libopenzim as package name, content unchanged?
Looks reasonable to me.
I just talked with Kelson what he meant is only package renaming and
nothing will be changed from upstream side.
Best Regards
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
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
http://copyninja.info
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Hi, On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Vasudev Kamath wrote: * Package name: zimlib Version : 0.93.20121015-1 * URL : http://www.openzim.org/index.php/Zimlib . ZIM is a file format created with focus on extracting and encoding data from Mediawiki for offline use. Even though project currently focuses on Mediawiki its original mission is to make web content available offline. Project intends to support other wiki engines and content management systems in future. When I saw this, it got me clearly confused because at first I thought that it was related to http://zim-wiki.org/. It's a bit unfortunate that Zim is used to refer to two projects reladed to wikis. I don't know who was first but maybe you could point out the nameclash to upstream ? FWIW the zim debian package refers to http://zim-wiki.org/ which I'm maintaining for Debian. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Git repository for zimlib shows rename was done in 2009, zim was already a few years old at that time. Afraid little I can do to resolve the clash other than renaming my application, which needless to say, I don't want to because I like the name. Regards, Jaap On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org wrote: Hi, On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Vasudev Kamath wrote: * Package name: zimlib Version : 0.93.20121015-1 * URL : http://www.openzim.org/index.php/Zimlib . ZIM is a file format created with focus on extracting and encoding data from Mediawiki for offline use. Even though project currently focuses on Mediawiki its original mission is to make web content available offline. Project intends to support other wiki engines and content management systems in future. When I saw this, it got me clearly confused because at first I thought that it was related to http://zim-wiki.org/. It's a bit unfortunate that Zim is used to refer to two projects reladed to wikis. I don't know who was first but maybe you could point out the nameclash to upstream ? FWIW the zim debian package refers to http://zim-wiki.org/ which I'm maintaining for Debian. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Hi Raphaël,
On 10:00 Mon 14 Jan , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
snip
When I saw this, it got me clearly confused because at first I thought
that it was related to http://zim-wiki.org/. It's a bit unfortunate that
Zim is used to refer to two projects reladed to wikis.
zim in zimlib is actually ZIM which stands for Zeno IMproved file format
which was derived from Zeno file format.
[1]
I don't know who was first but maybe you could point out the nameclash
to upstream ?
I will ask upstream but a couple of project depends on this library and
this name one being kiwix which I maintain but it duplicates this source
which is the reason why I ITPed it.
But as I said name is actually abbreviation and renaming it doesn't make
sense. What do you think?
FWIW the zim debian package refers to http://zim-wiki.org/ which I'm
maintaining for Debian.
Yeah first when I saw about zim in one of your blog post I got confused
and thought zimlib is already packaged :-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIM_%28file_format%29
Warm Regards
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Vasudev Kamath wrote: I will ask upstream Thanks. But as I said name is actually abbreviation and renaming it doesn't make sense. What do you think? I don't agree with this statement. Coming up with a name is always a creative endeavour and you can always come up with something different if really needed. The question is more whether upstream is amenable to changing the name given that zim from zim-wiki.org seems to predate openzim.org. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Engelheart kel...@kiwix.org
Bcc:
Subject: Re: Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of
ZIM specifications
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: 20130114101420.ga9...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
On 11:14 Mon 14 Jan , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
I will ask upstream
Thanks.
Emmanuel, the new upstream maintainer said as of now he has no opinion
but he agreed zim-wiki was first to use name zim.
But as I said name is actually abbreviation and renaming it doesn't make
sense. What do you think?
I don't agree with this statement. Coming up with a name is always a
creative endeavour and you can always come up with something different
if really needed.
That's true. Given that this is a library a name change can lead to
problem for all projects which is depending on it (I'm not sure how many
project depends on this lib though) any way that's my thinking but I
will leave it to upstream to decide (Emmanuel is CC'd)
snip
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
On 11:14 Mon 14 Jan , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
I will ask upstream
Thanks.
Just an update Emmanuel started a discussion on whether to get the
project renamed and possible names here [1]
He has asked me for some time before he can revert back on this bug
report with his opinion
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/offline-l/2013-January/001102.html
Cheers
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Hi Raphaël,
On 11:14 Mon 14 Jan , Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
I will ask upstream
Thanks.
But as I said name is actually abbreviation and renaming it doesn't make
sense. What do you think?
I don't agree with this statement. Coming up with a name is always a
creative endeavour and you can always come up with something different
if really needed.
The question is more whether upstream is amenable to changing the name
given that zim from zim-wiki.org seems to predate openzim.org.
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.
Warm Regards,
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
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. 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. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#698111: ITP: zimlib -- Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vasudev Kamath kamathvasu...@gmail.com
* Package name: zimlib
Version : 0.93.20121015-1
Upstream Author : Tommi Maekitalo to...@tntnet.org
* URL : http://www.openzim.org/index.php/Zimlib
* License : GPL-2
Programming Lang: C++
Description : Standard library implementation of ZIM specifications
zimlib is the standard implementation of ZIM specification, which
implements the read and write method for ZIM files.
.
ZIM is a file format created with focus on extracting and encoding data
from Mediawiki for offline use. Even though project currently focuses
on Mediawiki its original mission is to make web content available
offline. Project intends to support other wiki engines and content
management systems in future.
.
Features of zimlib are:
* Native, coded in C++
* Extremely fast
* Minimal footprint
* Minimal dependencies
* Portable on most OS (Windows, Linux, Mac OS X)
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
