Hi :) In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on "Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:32:01 +0200", with "Re: Bug#114336: ITP: xpostit-i18n -- simple postit program on X with I18N support", "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The i18n patch was distributed on a newsgroup (fj.sources). > > The original source archive was distributed from several > > ftp servers such as sun site. > > A small nitpick... *must* it be called xpostit-i18n? Why isn't xpostit > good enough? I'd thought that adding suffix (-18n) shows that the applied I18N patch has not been merged into the original upstream of xpostit. But this may not be necessary. Do you think just simple "xpostit" better ? Regards. -- Taketoshi Sano: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
