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

Bug#320672: Binary/Package name "leo" (ITPs)



Hello,
as CCed a week ago to 173879 already, I ITP a small programm which
connects to a popular english-german translation page and fetches the
possible translations. For it to be usefull, the name of the program
has to be short, because users are (going to be) typing it a lot.
Initially the name of the binary was "trans", but this binary name is
already taken by another programm already contained in Debian. Since
the web resource is called leo we switched to this name for the
program. At this time, I was unaware of your "leo". 

As far as I see, leo is an editor which typical users probably start
via the menu, and only at the beginning of a working session. Here a
short name for the *binary* is not important, AFAIS (Please convince
me otherwise if I am wrong on this).

Your ITP is going on for several years, and the last note from you is
dated Tue, 25 May 2004 00:24:16 +0200. So I have two questions:
a) Is it possible for your "leo" to call its binary something different,
   maybe "leo-editor"?
b) What is the status for the ITP?

The reason I ask is because I already talk to a possible sponsor (he
is reviewing my "leo" currently) and I know several people who would
like it to be included in Debian and who would all require a short
name. So I like to get my "leo" included (provided the sponsor agrees,
of course) in a reasonable time frame. 

I don't know your "leo" (yet) and hence I'd be happy to obtain the
answers to the questions I stated above.

Greetings

            Helge

P.S. A (brief) statement within the next two weeks would be nice, if
     possible, thanks.

-- 
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann, Dipl.-Phys.           Helge.Kreutzmann@itp.uni-hannover.de
                       gpg signed mail preferred 
    64bit GNU powered                  http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm
          Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/

Attachment: pgpBx1Ypw4JHE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: