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

Re: packaging pine

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Ben Armstrong wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:10:02PM -0400, I wrote:
> > (Pine) sucks for licensing reasons, not technical reasons.
> Whoops, I'm sure someone will call me on this one.  I should have said
> "not only for technical reasons" ;)  i.e. if it were merely the fact
> that pine sucked technically, it would not have been dropped.

But shouldn't there be another message as:

Package pine has no available version, but exists in the database.
This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and
never uploaded, has been obsoleted or is not available with the contents
of sources.list
E: Package pine has no installation candidate

It's nice whe nyou know, but I think a lot of people think it's a
debian-bug ;)

Dunno if this is technicly poss.


Reply to: