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

Re: PINE Debian Package

In <3540B2F9.128C@netnav.com>, John C. Ellingboe wrote: 
>  Hello to the list
>  I must stand by the Pine package maintainer on this issue.
>  The maintainer should not be expected to put himself in a bad
>  legal position for anyone just so they can have a convenient
>  installation package.
>  Not being a package maintainer, I have not read the Policy
>  manual in detail but it upholds a legal and moral standard
>  that is lacking in most commercial companies today. I would
>  also like to see the Debian distribution install almost hands
>  off like other lesser systems, but I would rather see the
>  organization maintain the high standards that caused me to
>  select Debian Linux over other Linux distributions/operating
>  systems.
>  ...

Total agreement, although I didn't agree a little while ago
when elvis was (temporarily) removed.  I just wanted an elvis
deb and forget about the fiddly bits such as distribution
wording.  Because of this thread, I better understand that
these fiddly bits are, in fact, the basis of Debian.

Thanks to everyone in the thread (George, Marcus, Remco, ...)
for remaining civil and actually discussing the issue instead
of taking the easy way out.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: