Re: packaging pine
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 04:57:33PM +0100, Michael De Nil wrote:
> > people on the #debian chat told me that it sucks, but I think it's a great
> > mailclient and that the user should find out if he likes it or not.
> > is there any other special reason ?
> It sucks for licensing reasons, not technical reasons.
> > otherwise I would be happy to pack it, :)
> Pine cannot go into Debian, not even non-free. It was dropped many moons
> ago. Search the debian-devel archives several years back if you are
> interested in details.
I really hate this kind of FUD, and nothing said in this thread since has
repaired this dull misconception.
Pine IS distributed by Debian in non-free as a source package only because
of license restrictions. Only modified binary distribution is restricted.
Apt-get is prefectly capable of obtaining, installing, and building the
pine package on your machine from a source download. Hense the validitiy
of other packages suggesting pine.
P.S. This e-mail was produced on that crappy useless program called Pine.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/