Re: COMPROMISE? PINE Debian Package
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> For the point of the approval of patches to make a binary image, it's
> almost a non-issue with the src package because the src package will
> always be preferred for reasons of the bugs fixed and features added. If
> you're worried about the maintainer putting in a back door, you probably
> should not be using a linux dist and should be instead building everything
> from source..
Oh, no. I am not in the least bit worried about the Debian maintainer. I
have been very impressed with the quality of the work that the debian
package maintainer have produced. I was thinking that UofW might be
afraid of undocumented binaries floating around and that might be the
source of the apprehension.
>
> And it can be made almost idiotproof to compile pine-src, really it can..
>
Yeah, that might be the way to go. If the package auto-compiles and
installs itself, it really does not matter except for taking additional
time to install and requiring gcc, make, <whatever>-dev packages, etc.
As I said earlier, it would not have even bothered me at all if it was
xfmail or mutt or something else. The only reason I got so upset is that
it is basicly an entry-level application.
George Bonser
If I had a catchy quip, it would be here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: