Re: packaging pine

To: Debian Devel Mailinglist <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: packaging pine
From: Andreas Metzler <ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:49:08 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20011210164908.GD4426@chuzpe.logic.univie.ac.at>
Mail-followup-to: Debian Devel Mailinglist <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.43.0112101653510.3744-100000@LiSa>
References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.43.0112101653510.3744-100000@LiSa>

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 04:57:33PM +0100, Michael De Nil wrote:
> why is pine not packed for debian ?

http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-software.html

It is the 5th Hit if you search for pine debian on google.
           cu andreas

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: packaging pine
  - From: Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr>

References:
- packaging pine
  - From: Michael De Nil <linux@aerythmic.be>

Prev by Date: Re: Upgrading X shouldn't overwrite XF86Config, or should it?
Next by Date: Re: packaging pine
Previous by thread: Re: packaging pine
Next by thread: Re: packaging pine
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread