On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 04:28:54PM +0200, E.L. Meijer Eric" wrote: > > > As for the source package thing, if the binary generated by the user is > > > exactly the same as the binary that would be provided in a .deb, what is > > > the point? It seems like a lot of extra work that changes absolutely > > > nothing. Maybe I am a Rebel Without a Clue on this but it sure seems > > > like a classic case of cranial rectosis to me. > > > > As I understand it, the license forbids distribution of a modified > > source or binary, but allows the distribution of patch files. > > Would it then even be possible to distribute binary patches? So that > you would have a pine-bare_x.y.deb containing the `approved' binary, > and a pine-patch_x.y.deb containg the patch. Then pine-bare_x.y.deb > would `recommend' (strongly :)) pine-patch_x.y.deb. On installation > pine-patch_x.y.deb would patch the `approved' binary into the `debian' > binary. Bare pine is a policy nono. Patches are needed to make it Debian-friendly and fit policy. The best way would be a pine-src package, really. It's not that hard to compile it. =>
Attachment:
pgp7A3akg_feu.pgp
Description: PGP signature