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

Re: packaging pine

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:

> 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.

There are no pine-src packages anymore. apt-get has evolved and
improved a lot regarding package building since we released potato and
(IMHO) does not justify duplication of source code in the archive the
way it was done in potato.

> 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??

It would be a very ugly hack.

For the pine packages, I think it's better that the user has the
control about how, where and when they are built and installed.
I don't want to hide the fact that pine is distributed in source-only
form and you have to compile yourself.

> 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.

Any type of mailbombing is always a bad idea.

Reply to: