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
