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

Bug#749456: marked as done (ITP: gpx -- Gcode to x3g conversion post-processor)

Your message dated Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:13:53 +0800
with message-id <20140625041350.GA7961@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#749456: Package name
has caused the Debian Bug report #749456,
regarding ITP: gpx -- Gcode to x3g conversion post-processor
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
749456: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=749456
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@debian.org>

* Package name    : gpx
  Version         : x.y.z
  Upstream Author : Dr. Henry Thomas
* URL             : https://github.com/whpthomas/GPX
* License         : GPL2+ 
  Programming Lang: C
  Description     : Gcode to x3g conversion post-processor

 GPX is a post processing utility for converting gcode output from 3D slicing
 software like Cura, KISSlicer, S3DCreator and Slic3r to x3g files for
 standalone 3D printing on Makerbot Cupcake, ThingOMatic, and Replicator 1/2/2x
 printers - with support for both stock and sailfish firmwares.

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 05:23:30PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
> Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > In this case, we're talking about confusion between a package name + /usr/bin
> > binary and a file format. There isn't, to my knowledge, any other executable in
> > PATH by the name of gpx, nor is there a package named gpx, so this is still
> > rather in the gray area. I'm not even sure that there would be much confusion
> > arising from this package being named as gpx -- Not many programs or packages
> > are named exactly the same as the file formats they consume.
> 
> Hi. Sorry for not replying sooner.
> 
> Yes, this is a gray area. Any confusion would certainly be dispelled
> once a user reads the package description, but looking at a list of
> package names some (at least myself) would initially assume that this
> package manipulates GPS track data.
> 
> Feel free to close this bug if you feel that renaming this would be more
> trouble than it's worth.

I'll do so then. Thanks.

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: