Re: PINE Debian Package
If we distribute a "binary" package that consists of the original source,
the debian patches, and an installation script that patches, compiles, and
installs, then surely we are not distributing a patched binary?
Users are patching it for themselves :)
Alternately, we could just make it an installer packae that says "please
have orig,patch.dsc in /usr/src", just like the netscape installer says
"please have netscape.tgz in $TMPDIR", and give explanations, or even
automations, on how to get it there.
Well, that is my suggestion, and I am fairly confident that there should
be a way to slip it or something like it past UW's license.
On a side issue, doesn't anyone use elm? Are there reasons why it is all
"mutt vs. pine"? On a freshly installed system that I have not downloaded
pine onto, I usually use elm. I can't see any disadvantages of elm, at
least on the surface, and it seems a little more extensible than pine (no
doubt due to licensing :) I am considering whether I should just switch to
it so I can stop supporting retentives like UW. (The observant will notice
I am writing this in pine :)
-Greg Mildenhall
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: