pkgdump

[Steve Traugott]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 01:31:41AM +0200, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> Its name is pkgdump. It has got some extra features such as report
> logging/, etc when compared to the current network package dumper
> named tcpdump. I want to keep the name of the package. The licence
> will be GPL. However, how cant there be a coincidence while i am
> trying to maintain this package and there is another package named
> pkgdump maintaned by anyone else?

http://www.google.com/search?q=pkgdump shows nothing else with that
name.

But "pkgdump" is not good -- it sounds like a packaging tool, not a
network tool. I think there is a translation problem:

package = a collection or archive of software or files
packet = a chunk of network data

I think you might want to use something like "packet*" or "pkt*" for
the name. Check google for conflicts.

Steve

--
Steve Traugott
Speaker Coordinator, Silicon Valley Linux Users Group
http://www.svlug.org
--
UNIX/Linux Infrastructure Architect, TerraLuna LLC
ste...@TerraLuna.Org
http://www.stevegt.com

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

[Halil Demirezen]

>
> But "pkgdump" is not good -- it sounds like a packaging tool, not a
> network tool. I think there is a translation problem:
>
> package = a collection or archive of software or files
> packet = a chunk of network data
>
> I think you might want to use something like "packet*" or "pkt*" for
> the name. Check google for conflicts.
>

Thanks for this warning.
I think i got confused because of our native language.
we use both package and packet in the same way.

so I'd rather use pktdump instead of pkgdump?

I think this sounds better.

Halil Demirezen

[Steve Traugott]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 02:47:55AM +0200, Halil Demirezen wrote:
> >
> > But "pkgdump" is not good -- it sounds like a packaging tool, not a
> > network tool. I think there is a translation problem:
> >
> > package = a collection or archive of software or files
> > packet = a chunk of network data
> >
> > I think you might want to use something like "packet*" or "pkt*" for
> > the name. Check google for conflicts.
>
> Thanks for this warning.
> I think i got confused because of our native language.
> we use both package and packet in the same way.

I understand.

> so I'd rather use pktdump instead of pkgdump?

http://www.google.com/search?q=pktdump shows several existing
utilities by that name. A better idea might be "pktreport" -- no

[Halil Demirezen]

>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=pktdump shows several existing
> utilities by that name. A better idea might be "pktreport" -- no
> conflicts.
>

Thanks for your advice. I will do that
That name responds i want to do..

[Martin Schulze]

Halil Demirezen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently maintaining a package that i gave a name.

> Its name is pkgdump. It has got some extra features such as report
> logging/, etc when compared to the current network package dumper
> named tcpdump. I want to keep the name of the package. The licence
> will be GPL. However, how cant there be a coincidence while i am
> trying to maintain this package and there is another package named
> pkgdump maintaned by anyone else?

I'm not sure I parsed your text correctly, but the first one or the
more popular one wins.

Apart from that, pkgdump raises associations with a package manager or
something. npdump (network packet dump) or netdump (network dumper)
etc. sound more appropriate to me.

Regards,

Joey

--
Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about its friends.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.