[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

junk/pine releases



First my sincere apologies for the mess that got released. A combination 
of several poor assumptions and on whopper of a mistake have lead to 
these results.
Sometime early in the development cycle the upstream source replaced the 
debian source, loosing all of Ted Hajek's great work. I realized this 
shortly after all of the "new" bugs began to surface. I noticed that they 
were quite similar to bugs mentioned in the changelog as having been 
fixed. Recovering the R3 source, I was able to rebuild, back to where I 
was, and keep Ted's fixes.
Now I only have two issues unresolved:

1. I thought the default link was to shared libraries. That doesn't seem 
to be the case. I have searched the gcc info pages to no avail. Please 
someone, point me to TFM so I can RTFM and figure out how to link libc5 
as a shared library. (ncurses links properly?)

2. This release of pine has included the imapd supplied with pine source. 
I have had great conceptual problems with this addition. I feel compelled 
to inform the installer that they are getting this program, and ask 
permission to modify configuration files to configure it. I would prefer 
to be able to install it or not, at the installers preference, but dpkg 
doesn't seem to support this (yes/no?). Aside from asking some possibly 
confusing questions I see no answer to this other than splitting the 
imapd out into a separate binary package. Then I can safely assume that 
the installer has chosen to get this new daemon installed and properly 
perform the configuration in inetd. Any ideas on this issue would be 
greatly appreciated.

Parity on Dudes,

Dwarf

------------                                          --------------

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 877-0257
      Flexible Software              Fax:     NONE 
      Black Creek Critters           e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------


Reply to: