Re: what about Pine's license?
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Rafael Kitover wrote:
> While the pine license is evil, true. I have a suggestion for the way pine
> packages are currently made. The process of installing pine currently is,
> apt-get install pine396-src
> apt-get install pine396-diffs
> cd /usr/src/pine
> read the README
> dpkg-source -x pine*dsc
> cd pine*;debian/rules binary
> see warning, press enter, watch it build
> cd ..;dpkg -i *.deb
No, this is the process of *compiling* pine.
The process of installing pine is just
dpkg -i pine.deb
And for this reason pine.deb should continue to be the packahe it is.
> Now, why not have a package just called "pine" that would:
> pre-depend on devscripts, a c compiler, and whatever else is necessary to
> build pine. And of course on the pine packages themselves. Suggest
> pine-docs. With the end result of all this being that a user could type
> apt-get install pine
I have no objection to such package, as long as it is not named "pine".
But someone else would have to be the maintainer, I don't want to
maintain a tricky package like that.
"48c9f95505857e6e32052d787494621d" (a truly random sig)