Re: pine (was: Re: debian-faq: patch5 to remove some outdated content)
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 08:36:25PM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> > Holger Wansing wrote:
> >> <p>Some packages are only distributed as source code due to the restrictions
> >> in their licenses. Notably, one such package is <tt>pine</tt>, see
> >> <ref id="pine"> for more information.
> >>
> >> So if we remove pine from the doc, we need another example for such
> >> nonfree software, which is only allowed to be distributed as source code.
> >> Is anyone aware of such software?
> >
> > publicfile. There is https://packages.debian.org/publicfile-installer .
>
> Except that publicfile isn't an example "only distributed as source
> code". Debian doesn't distribute even that much - instead the
> installer package *fetches* that code from upstream.
Exactly. The pine case was really unique, because we distributed
the source as a Debian source package, i.e. orig.tar.gz + diff.gz + dsc.
There was no .deb, and there was no "installer".
The idea was for interested people to "apt-get source pine" and build
it in the same way they would build any other package (the whole
issue was even a little bit "educational", so to speak).
I think there has not been any package like that after pine was removed
(but I'm not 100% sure). If that's the case, I recommend removing the
paragraph entirely.
Thanks.
Reply to: