On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 10:40:43PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: > > For the point of the approval of patches to make a binary image, it's > > almost a non-issue with the src package because the src package will > > always be preferred for reasons of the bugs fixed and features added. If > > you're worried about the maintainer putting in a back door, you probably > > should not be using a linux dist and should be instead building everything > > from source.. > > Oh, no. I am not in the least bit worried about the Debian maintainer. I > have been very impressed with the quality of the work that the debian > package maintainer have produced. I was thinking that UofW might be > afraid of undocumented binaries floating around and that might be the > source of the apprehension. That is indeed why they want it either pristine binaries or pristine source with patches. In that way they don't have to deal with approval. I see their logic. I don't LIKE it, but I SEE it. > > And it can be made almost idiotproof to compile pine-src, really it can.. > > Yeah, that might be the way to go. If the package auto-compiles and > installs itself, it really does not matter except for taking additional > time to install and requiring gcc, make, <whatever>-dev packages, etc. People have said qmail-src does this, but when I installed qmail-src it didn't. What I had to do was run the dpkg-source and dpkg-buildpackage commands, which I learned at that time in order to build it. The file /usr/doc/qmail-src/README says there's a script for it, but not what the script is. (if there is one, it's not in /usr/src/qmail-src) I also can't say the qmail postinst does everything it could. I'll file these fixes under wishlist bugs eventually. At any rate, hopefully pine would have a symlink in /usr/src/pine-src to the README file (a good thing), the script to build pine also in the source dir, and a question in the postinst "Here's how you compile pine .deb's, do you want me to do this for you now?" As I said, almost idiot-proof. => > As I said earlier, it would not have even bothered me at all if it was > xfmail or mutt or something else. The only reason I got so upset is that > it is basicly an entry-level application. It is. The only mailer that could come close is mutt and not without an internal configuration program. Actually, no, it doesn't have to be internal as long as you can run it from within mutt. The only editor I have used that comes close to pico is joe, and even that isn't close enough. (Not to mention a probably minor but quite annoying bug in same)
Attachment:
pgpQLg6tjo7GT.pgp
Description: PGP signature