Bug 560967

After version 0.42, Zim has been reimplemented with Python.

I have written a piece of spec file for Zim-in-Python. All are contained in the attached srpm.

Besides changes for packaging Zim-in-Python, some extra changes I made against the latest spec file:
- Add post and postun scriptlets
- Remove scrot from requires, which is just used by a plugin. The program has multiple plugins and each has their dependences.
- Change Gtk2-Perl to PyGTK in the description


And a new version of Zim-in-Perl is also available now.
http://zim-wiki.org/downloads/Zim-0.29.tar.gz

Created attachment 389277 [details]
proposed srpm for Zim-in-Python

Yep -- I need to follow up, but I've been discussing with upstream maintaining the Perl implementation of Zim; it seems as though we're both amenable to it (and I have some investment with it) so that should happen shortly.  It's extremely unlikely at this point that I'll be using the Python branch, so if you have an interest in it that we can't satisfy using this branch, you should feel free to submit it as a new package for review.  (preferably called PyZim or something :))

A review request has been submitted as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563844 .
(In reply to comment #3)
> Yep -- I need to follow up, but I've been discussing with upstream maintaining
> the Perl implementation of Zim; it seems as though we're both amenable to it
> (and I have some investment with it) so that should happen shortly.  It's
> extremely unlikely at this point that I'll be using the Python branch, so if
> you have an interest in it that we can't satisfy using this branch, you should
> feel free to submit it as a new package for review.  (preferably called PyZim
> or something :))

(In reply to comment #3)
> Yep -- I need to follow up, but I've been discussing with upstream maintaining
> the Perl implementation of Zim; it seems as though we're both amenable to it
> (and I have some investment with it) so that should happen shortly.  It's
> extremely unlikely at this point that I'll be using the Python branch, so if
> you have an interest in it that we can't satisfy using this branch, you should
> feel free to submit it as a new package for review.  (preferably called PyZim
> or something :))    

I think a better way is to rename perl branches to something else such as zim02. 
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
Then we can update zim to the python branches, the trunk of zim seems python coded now.

A secondary solution is to convince upstream renameing either of the two branches, such as pyzim or perl-zim

Chris, Jussi and me just think that the new package "zim"
(review request submitted as bug 563844) should just obsolete
the old "Zim" package (you maintain) as this is just that zim/Zim is
rewritten with different language. 

Unless you have any reason you want to keep old "Zim" package
on Fedora, I just want to approve new "zim" package and make
zim obsolete Zim. How do you think?

I use Zim heavily, including with some custom plugin code I depend on...  As stated above, I intend to carry on the original Zim as a fork, with upstream's blessing.

So, to be more explicit, I have no intention of allowing this Zim to become obsolete :)

I also use Zim heavily, as my everyday noter. But what is a fact is that the Python branch is the focus of development and the Perl one is almost frozen. And (py)zim has replaced (pl)zim as upstream main release and will eventually provide identical and more functions with (pl)Zim.

Although, by now, (py)zim is not yet mature enough as (pl)Zim, but in my opinion, at least, (py)zim should be imported to F-13 for testing now and replace (pl)zim in F-13. (Pl)zim can be kept updated in F-11 and F-12.

(In reply to comment #7)
> I use Zim heavily, including with some custom plugin code I depend on...  As
> stated above, I intend to carry on the original Zim as a fork, with upstream's
> blessing.

- Well, "as I still use this old package, please don't remove this"
  is not a valid reason to keep a package already obsoleted by the
  upstream.

  If you really intend to maintain the old perl based Zim by
  yourself, please modify your old Zim so that it won't conflict
  with the new zim.

Note that:
	file /usr/bin/zim from install of Zim-0.29-1.fc13.noarch conflicts with file from package zim-0.44-5.fc13.noarch
	file /usr/share/man/man1/zim.1.gz from install of Zim-0.29-1.fc13.noarch conflicts with file from package zim-0.44-5.fc13.noarch
	file /usr/share/zim/templates/html/Default.html from install of Zim-0.29-1.fc13.noarch conflicts with file from package zim-0.44-5.fc13.noarch
	file /usr/share/zim/templates/html/Presentation.html from install of Zim-0.29-1.fc13.noarch conflicts with file from package zim-0.44-5.fc13.noarch
	file /usr/share/zim/templates/html/Print.html from install of Zim-0.29-1.fc13.noarch conflicts with file from package zim-0.44-5.fc13.noarch
	file /usr/share/zim/templates/wiki/_New.txt from install of Zim-0.29-1.fc13.noarch conflicts with file from package zim-0.44-5.fc13.noarch
	file /usr/share/zim/urls.list from install of Zim-0.29-1.fc13.noarch conflicts with file from package zim-0.44-5.fc13.noarch

1) This package "zim" you cite in comment #10 is not in Fedora, and
2) The Zim package's upstream is changing, and certainly doesn't consider this package to be "obsolete" :)

I'll say again here:

"I have no intention of removing the current Zim package; its upstream is changing and it will be able to continue as is.

"I'd like to see these two packages co-exist peacfully, however...  I'm certainly open to any reasonable suggestions along those lines that don't involve obsoleting the Zim package, or changing bits that users recognize, e.g. /usr/bin/zim, etc."