Re: packaging pine
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If you want a "pine-builder" package you are welcome to write one, but
> do not ask me for help. I think we don't need it (not to mention dpkg
> is not reentrant and such package would have to be quite tricky).
Just a rough thought without any knowledge if this could work: What
about a package which installs pine-src and builds the binary package
in the postinst. I'm afraid installing it in the same process would
not be possible because dpkg locks the database, but a wrapper around
pine which does the actual dpkg -i if there is a new package build on the
system before calling the pine binary could work. But whether this stuff
would make sense??
I think mailbombing the authors of pine to change their crappy license
would be an even better idea - but I'm afraid people did so in the
past and there seem to be stubborn people at the University of Washington.