Re: No PINE debian package?
Hi... I'm running a Pine binary package. I think he meant that he couldn't find a Pine binary package at all. Alex On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Nathan E Norman wrote: Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 17:42:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Keith Alen Vance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: UserList Debian debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: No PINE debian package? Resent-Date: 19 Jul 1998 22:42:59 - Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Keith Alen Vance wrote: : Is there a debain package for Pine? I haven't seen one, but I could be : looking in the wrong place. I have elm installed ut I prefer to use pine. : If anyone know where I can get a debian package for Pine I would : appreciate it. Finding a Pine package is easy. Here's how you do it: 1) Download the Pine source package. 2) Unpack it with `dpkg-source -x' 3) cd to the pine dir and build it with `dpkg-buildpackage' 4) dpkg -i ../pine*deb There ya go :) Since the Pine source is a bit dodgy Debian doesn't distribute modified binaries. Better safe than sorry. -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: No PINE debian package?
s On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Alexander wrote: Hi... I'm running a Pine binary package. I think he meant that he couldn't find a Pine binary package at all. It's included in the distribution and available for download from www.debian.org. Can't get much more available than that unless you contract Pam Anderson to deliver it to your home. ;) He may have missed it because it's in non-free rather than mail. Jason -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: No PINE debian package?
jason and jill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's included in the distribution and available for download from www.debian.org. Can't get much more available than that unless you contract Pam Anderson to deliver it to your home. ;) He may have missed it because it's in non-free rather than mail. Also, note that Pine is not available directly as a binary for hamm; it was actually a mistake to distribute it for bo (Debian 1.3.x) in the first place, and the University of Washington has asked us not to distribute any precompiled binary other than the ones they've approved; however, we can distribute the source, and so in hamm pine exists only in source form. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: No PINE debian package?
On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Alexander wrote: : Hi... : : I'm running a Pine binary package. I think he meant that he couldn't find : a Pine binary package at all. Of course that's what he meant, and for good reason - there is no Pine binary package in hamm. That's why I described how to create one. -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
No PINE debian package?
Is there a debain package for Pine? I haven't seen one, but I could be looking in the wrong place. I have elm installed ut I prefer to use pine. If anyone know where I can get a debian package for Pine I would appreciate it. Thanks, Keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] You only get one chance at life, but if you do it right, you only need one. http://www.naples.net/~nfn11988 -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: No PINE debian package?
On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Keith Alen Vance wrote: : Is there a debain package for Pine? I haven't seen one, but I could be : looking in the wrong place. I have elm installed ut I prefer to use pine. : If anyone know where I can get a debian package for Pine I would : appreciate it. Finding a Pine package is easy. Here's how you do it: 1) Download the Pine source package. 2) Unpack it with `dpkg-source -x' 3) cd to the pine dir and build it with `dpkg-buildpackage' 4) dpkg -i ../pine*deb There ya go :) Since the Pine source is a bit dodgy Debian doesn't distribute modified binaries. Better safe than sorry. -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: PINE Debian Package
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. Debian will never be for the plug and pray crowd since there is no support hot line for them to call on when things don't work. That is what keeps the badly flawed commercial PC operating system in demand. MEEP! I just saw an artricle about Linux in a Finnish computer news paper (a monthly magazine called MicroPc) that stated more than clearly that you can not buy support for Linux. I am more than willing to prove this false... Anybody around here, I'm going to put a page up about people / companies doing support etc works around L. Also a nice little letter to the makers of that artcile is onways. You can pay yourself sick if you want to. With Linux you can stay working, The maintainers should be highly praised for providing us with the high quality operating system and selection of applications that we can enjoy using at no more cost than learning something about them so we can install the software. Without them and their volunteer efforts we would be rebooting quite often like all the other PC users out there. I have found the effort of getting my Debian system working proper has been less than just getting the popular one to stay up for a short time. I haven't rebooted my 'puter in laast 6 months exept kernel-updates. I could even kiss one of them for the stuff they've provided us wit., -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On 24 Apr 1998, Mike Miller wrote: Michael == Michael Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My advice would be for the maintainer of the pine package, (or whoever it was George is accusing of changing the interpretation of the copyright) to answer George's question about why it was done That was done some time ago - see Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to this list. Well, my answer to that is that I have not been reading the thread.. Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- WinErr: 016 Error buffer overflow - Too many errors encountered. Additional errors may not be displayed or recorded. --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package (maildir support)
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:07:44PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote: Emailled to you. I am guessing we'll soon see the patch applied to the procmail in slink, which is cool by me. = you got me again... what is slink? Next release of debian... bo-- hamm -- slink 1.3.1 2.0 2.1 (?) I think 2.1 is the next version.. Anyone? I don't know.. If we have stable 2.2 kernel, apt, gnome, and a number of other usefuls ready in slink I'd be one of the first to say all of that might constitute a 3.0, but we'll see closer to time I guess. = True... Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Mulder: Could say the guy was running on empty. --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Ossama Othman wrote: Hi guys, Perhaps a debian-pine list is in order. :) This whole PINE issue is getting blown way out of proportion. Debian's policy is clear. Both sides have points but I agree more that Debian should not interpret PINE's licensing in a way that would obviously be pushing things and that may have the potential of bringing Debian into a legal battle. IMHO, Debian's PINE maintainer made the right decision, even if it does inconvenience PINE users for a little while. However, this time of inconvenience will pass; especially as it becomes a given that PINE will not be distributed as it used to be. I agree I have always respected the opinions of George and Marcus, and still do. I ask that we all just give this PINE issue a rest, at least for a little while. My middle finger is getting a callous from hitting the delete key d when deleting all of these PINE posts. :-) hehe... Ditto. And, yes I am a PINE user. Ditto again Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- If you don't know where you want to go, we'll make sure you get taken. -Japanese Microsoft ad slogan translated back into English --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
If we distribute a binary package that consists of the original source, the debian patches, and an installation script that patches, compiles, and installs, then surely we are not distributing a patched binary? Users are patching it for themselves :) Alternately, we could just make it an installer packae that says please have orig,patch.dsc in /usr/src, just like the netscape installer says please have netscape.tgz in $TMPDIR, and give explanations, or even automations, on how to get it there. Well, that is my suggestion, and I am fairly confident that there should be a way to slip it or something like it past UW's license. On a side issue, doesn't anyone use elm? Are there reasons why it is all mutt vs. pine? On a freshly installed system that I have not downloaded pine onto, I usually use elm. I can't see any disadvantages of elm, at least on the surface, and it seems a little more extensible than pine (no doubt due to licensing :) I am considering whether I should just switch to it so I can stop supporting retentives like UW. (The observant will notice I am writing this in pine :) -Greg Mildenhall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Sat, Apr 25, 1998 at 11:37:31AM +0800, The Thought Assassin wrote: If we distribute a binary package that consists of the original source, the debian patches, and an installation script that patches, compiles, and installs, then surely we are not distributing a patched binary? Users are patching it for themselves :) This is exactly how we are doing it with qmail :-P /* :) */ Alternately, we could just make it an installer packae that says please have orig,patch.dsc in /usr/src, just like the netscape installer says please have netscape.tgz in $TMPDIR, and give explanations, or even automations, on how to get it there. Unnecessary as your already explained solution above can work. The point seems to be for PINE people to make user think before applying the patch. Well, I doubt that most users and developers!) are experts enough to judge the security of a pine patch... Well, that is my suggestion, and I am fairly confident that there should be a way to slip it or something like it past UW's license. It wouldn't even be a slip, just a legal way. UW is aware of this and is allowing distribution of diff files! On a side issue, doesn't anyone use elm? Are there reasons why it is all mutt vs. pine? On a freshly installed system that I have not downloaded pine onto, I usually use elm. I can't see any disadvantages of elm, at least on the surface, and it seems a little more extensible than pine (no doubt due to licensing :) I am considering whether I should just switch to it so I can stop supporting retentives like UW. (The observant will notice I am writing this in pine :) The point is as follows (correct me if I'm wrong): elm was discontinued and then me (full name ?) was working on it and released elm-me+. But me also wrote a mail reader from the cratch, and this is mutt. So, you can think of mutt as the successor of elm, although they are quite different. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 01:48:40PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: When you know complain about the removed pine package, then you have two direct solutions (beside the solution to make your own pine package and put it on a derived distribution, as you are describing below): Why do you continue to avoid the question? Debian has distributed Pine in non-free for about two years. As far as I can tell, Pine's license has not changed. It is Debian's POLICY towards that license that has changed. THAT is what I want clarified. Pine is not a new package in the distribution nor is it in a new section of the distribution. Debian has had its policy for a long time. That is why the package has always been put in non-free. Are you aware that among other things the patches to pine added since the last binary package was released include things which are not merely configuration but are purely bug fixes, feature enhancements (maildir patch comes to mind) and other things along that line? UoW was asked about these things and they said they didn't want binaries of unapproved patches. That was their decision, not Debian's, not mine, not anyone else here's to make. This got pine pulled out of hamm when it was frozen. What I suggested (and there was at least one person who agrees with me) was to pack the pristine source (which is distributable) along with the Debian patches (configuration, additional features, the debian/ directory, etc--also legal to distribute) and roll it up in to a wrapper .deb file so people can see the thing without digging through the source trees (as I had to---quite annoying that if not for that the fact that I intended to patch for maildir anyway before I found it had been done) and make it easier on people who want the program as a debian package. Granted, we can't distribute a binary package, but we can build it locally and I'm willing to bet you have the stuff you need to do it on your machine right now, with the possible exception of dpkg-dev. I believe the package maintainer has commented on this thread already and seems at least interested in the prospect of a pine-src package which would probably end up in slink and hamm-updates. This may not be the simplest solution, but the UoW doesn't want us to have the simple solution. In this sort of situation, I think a -src .deb file is a good thing for pristine source with which one can apply Debian patches. Does anyone else think so? Currently the only things I know of in this category are qmail and pine. Netscape can be put in .deb now and I don't think you can distribute rvplayer.. I think ranting on a public list instead is not very kind. Then will someone please answer the question? Shooting the messager does not fix the problem. All I want is an clear answer to the simply question: Why did Debian change their interpretation? Because someone asked and the UoW clarified that they didn't want patched binaries if they didn't pre-approve the patches. The maintainer didn't like that idea. To be more concrete: If the maintainer of a package decides that it is too high risk to put a package in non-free because of the copyright, he is free doing so. I did not speak with either the maintainer nor with the upstream authors about this issue, so I'll not impose any judgement on either. Please answer the question. Pine has had that same license nearly forever. Debian has had the same policy. Pine was free-enough to go in non-free as a binary for a long time. Suddenly it is not. Why. Clarification of terms of the pine license and the factor that some of the patches are not just FHS-compliance editing of makefiles and the like. But Debian has also maintained a non-free portion for stuff that does not meet the condifitions of the dfsg. Are you saying that Debian is going to drop non-free and contrib? I am baffled. The danger of having to remove it? Huh? You seem confused. main is guaranteed to be 100% free. Non-free is guaranteed to be 100% non-free. I accepted that when I browse in the non-free archive. That's why I want to see a pine-src package built. It would at least put it back in where people could use it. pgpc98x6Tylm5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:48:17PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: Should we get a petition and a nice request letter going? :-) RMS has tried it several times, I think, without any success. Do you really think we would succeed? Any special reason why they would hear us now but not before? Because the GPL's idea of free is not the same as DFSG's idea? Perhaps it would become DFSG if we could convince them to allow us to have a modded package if was marked as altered, listed in a way suitable to them how it was altered, and did not interfere with the version numbering of pine? ie, pine 3.96L+debian-7 or something? If this is done and the license were to say that derived works must keep the same license, it would then not have any restrictions the GPL and BSD licenses do not impose, but it would still protect them from having to deal with non- pristine version issues. This would make EVERYONE'S life a little easier and the simplest mail reader for a shell becomes again simpler to install---and part of the base package. pgp037HcYlENx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 05:54:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: [..] Like Qmail. There are lots of packages in non-free as .deb files. We even make it easy to install qmail on your machine, compiling during the install. [..] When did that happen? qmail-src for me just dropped the .dsc and source files in /usr/src/qmail-src and said to go compile it, which I did. (I like qmail. I use qmail. I like pine. I don't use pine anymore because my mail habits have changed, but I will keep pine and will compile source packages if I need to..) pgpoySvgjGSyF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 05:29:01PM -0400, Scott Ellis wrote: That's the proposed solution right now. Yeah, and I like it. = Despite the millions of compiler warnings pine compiles cleanly enough. You've obviously stumbled upon a new meaning of the phrase cleanly enough that I was not previously aware of. I've come to the conclusion that one should not compile pine with -Wall if one values their sanity. Watch OSS/Free compile a few times, pine squeaks clean by comparison. = pgphoVTw6mw59.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: Are you aware that among other things the patches to pine added since the last binary package was released include things which are not merely configuration but are purely bug fixes, feature enhancements (maildir patch comes to mind) and other things along that line? UoW was asked about these things and they said they didn't want binaries of unapproved patches. If it was any other package, I would not have said anything and I waited for someone else to bring it up before venting my frustration. Pine/pico is the one package that you can not expect the user to build because chances are good that they can't. I use pine over telnet and never use pico but it is on the system and always will be. This is a very special application, it is usually one's first mailer and editor. Yes, this is very unfortunate. But the upstream authors really do not want to change the license, so Debian has no choise. And the user can be given very specific intstructions or even a script that will make it very easy to compile and install pine. In this sort of situation, I think a -src .deb file is a good thing for pristine source with which one can apply Debian patches. Does anyone else think so? Currently the only things I know of in this category are qmail and pine. Netscape can be put in .deb now and I don't think you can distribute rvplayer.. qmail is completely different. The author specificly disallows binary distribution of any kind. University of Washington makes no such demands. The non-patched pine binaries violate Debian Policy. It is illegal to distribute patched pine binaries. These two combined leave distributing patched source as the only legal way to distrubute a version of pine that complies with Debian Policy. Because someone asked and the UoW clarified that they didn't want patched binaries if they didn't pre-approve the patches. The maintainer didn't like that idea. Hmm. I can understand that from the maintainers ego standpoint but if I owned pine, I might want a look at those patches too in order to see if there is anything that should go into the mainstream distribution and to see if someone was hacking backdoors to reading other people's email into the program. In any case, if UofW specificly said that they want to pre-approve patches to a program they own and Debian thinks that is not acceptable, there is no choice. I can understand their concern considering privacy issues. Now if someone's mail is hacked on a Debian system and it is found to be the fault of Debian's patches, it is Debian that gets hauled into court where under UofW's method, Debian would have had some protection since the patches would have been approved by UofW. I guess the same exposure would apply to any patches to any email system supplied by Debian with patches to the source. If someone's mail gets hacked, it is the fault of the hacker, not of anyone in Debian. Suppose you could sue Microsoft every time a Windows system is cracked. Or any commercial OS, for that matter. You can't. And you can't sue Debian [1] if a Debian system is cracked. Remco [1] You can't sue Debian at all, actually, since Debian is not incorporated in any way so legally Debian doesn't even exist. You'd have to sue the indivudual maintainers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: Yes, this is very unfortunate. But the upstream authors really do not want to change the license, so Debian has no choise. And the user can be given very specific intstructions or even a script that will make it very easy to compile and install pine. I wonder if we might be able to accomodate both needs. An approved binary that might not change as often as the source and a source package that a current binary can be built from if desired. If the binary isn't up to date, it defeats the idea of providing it. And seeking out permission to distribute specific binaries is not what Debian is in the business of doing. Please, read http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html, specifically point 9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The social contract is what Debian *IS*. If you don't like it, you know where to find RedHat. [1] You can't sue Debian at all, actually, since Debian is not incorporated in any way so legally Debian doesn't even exist. You'd have to sue the indivudual maintainers. Having a box hacked into is one thing, providing a program that delibrately contains a back door (as the original Sendmail source did) is something different. That is why I think some authors are so paranoid. Email security is a big issue. It is fairly easy to code a MUA that could send a copy of the inbox on demand just as it is easy to code an MTA to grant root access on demand. Which is why Open Source software is so important. If you have the source to an application, it is much harder for security holes to remain undetected. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: COMPROMISE? PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 04:41:15PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: I believe the package maintainer has commented on this thread already and seems at least interested in the prospect of a pine-src package which would probably end up in slink and hamm-updates. This may not be the simplest solution, but the UoW doesn't want us to have the simple solution. Would this work: Put the source and diff on the site and make a -src package to build a .deb as is currently done with qmail. This sounds reasonable. At the same time, submit the .diff to UofW for approval and AFTER approval, put a binary in the archive with a provisional agreement that should an emergency security issue arise, debian could TEMPORARILLY replace the binary with an emergency secured binary pending the disposition of the security changes. In other words, under most circumstances, the binary would not change until approved by UofW except under emergency circumstances. Not sure UofW is going to like that, or even that the maintainer will like it. The above -src package is probably all that is REALLY needed to satisfy what they want (no potential back-doors in the binaries) so it might not be needed for that standpoint. 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.. And it can be made almost idiotproof to compile pine-src, really it can.. pgpydAbW4b8wR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Anthony Fok wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:33:47PM +0200, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: I contacted washington.edu and they really do not want binaries to be distributed if they do not approve the patches *first*. If we do not have the freedom to apply whatever patches we like, including security or bug fixes, without an approval from the University of Washington, then we will have to distribute the patches without the binaries. I wonder: Could we all band together and complain *loudly* but *politely*? ;-) This is very very frustrating, and it is giving both Pine and Debian a bad reputation. You are right, it is. They are going to keep losing users if they keep this stupid No patched binaries thing up. Again you are right. I would like to try and express my concerns over this thread... how long has it continued? 30-50 messages? I can see a definite trend. AROUND IN BY CIRCLES. My advice would be for the maintainer of the pine package, (or whoever it was George is accusing of changing the interpretation of the copyright) to answer George's question about why it was done, then make an announcement about what he/she will do with the package. i.e. make a 'pine-src' or something. After that, please cease this amazingly stupid discussion. I can tell the lot of you now, I am getting fairly fed up with the childish behaviour associated with it. Some of you will agree with me, most of you will probably not, that is to be expected, so any flames will go straight to /dev/null. Good night. Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Those who can, do. Those who can't, don't. --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Britton wrote: Geez you sound like an agitator. No, I am done with the subject but I will make it clear that I am not anti commercial software. Would you like a shovel? Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- WinErr: 00F User error - Not our fault. Is Not! Is Not! --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SNIP 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. Debian will never be for the plug and pray crowd since there is no support hot line for them to call on when things don't work. That is what keeps the badly flawed commercial PC operating system in demand. The maintainers should be highly praised for providing us with the high quality operating system and selection of applications that we can enjoy using at no more cost than learning something about them so we can install the software. Without them and their volunteer efforts we would be rebooting quite often like all the other PC users out there. I have found the effort of getting my Debian system working proper has been less than just getting the popular one to stay up for a short time. In highest regards to the Debian Organization, John Ellingboe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package (maildir support)
Emailled to you. I am guessing we'll soon see the patch applied to the procmail in slink, which is cool by me. = you got me again... what is slink? not sure, check www.qmail.org, they list most of the patches there. ya ... nothing for cucipop though ... have to keep searching. adam.
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 07:41:37PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the binary isn't up to date, it defeats the idea of providing it. And seeking out permission to distribute specific binaries is not what Debian is in the business of doing. Please, read http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html, specifically point 9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The social contract is what Debian *IS*. If you don't like it, you know where to find RedHat. Which probably should hold for everything in main but not non-free or contrib. Those portions are specificly for software that does not meet the DFSG. I already told you that contrib software has to be 100% dfsg free it may only depend on non-free software, but it must not be non-free iteself. Anything in non-free is guaranteed to be non-DFSG compliant. But at least distributable via ftp. George Bonser If I had a catchy quip, it would be here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package (maildir support)
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Adam Shand wrote: Emailled to you. I am guessing we'll soon see the patch applied to the procmail in slink, which is cool by me. = you got me again... what is slink? Next release of debian... bo-- hamm -- slink 1.3.1 2.0 2.1 (?) I think 2.1 is the next version.. Anyone? Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- A feature is a bug with seniority. --- Debian GNU/Linux Ooohh You are missing out! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
Hi guys, Perhaps a debian-pine list is in order. :) This whole PINE issue is getting blown way out of proportion. Debian's policy is clear. Both sides have points but I agree more that Debian should not interpret PINE's licensing in a way that would obviously be pushing things and that may have the potential of bringing Debian into a legal battle. IMHO, Debian's PINE maintainer made the right decision, even if it does inconvenience PINE users for a little while. However, this time of inconvenience will pass; especially as it becomes a given that PINE will not be distributed as it used to be. I have always respected the opinions of George and Marcus, and still do. I ask that we all just give this PINE issue a rest, at least for a little while. My middle finger is getting a callous from hitting the delete key d when deleting all of these PINE posts. :-) And, yes I am a PINE user. Thanks guys, -Ossama __ Ossama Othman [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- PGP Keys --- Public: http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/othman/OO_PUBLIC.asc REVOKED: http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/staff/othman/OO_REVOKED.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
Michael == Michael Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My advice would be for the maintainer of the pine package, (or whoever it was George is accusing of changing the interpretation of the copyright) to answer George's question about why it was done That was done some time ago - see Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] to this list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the binary isn't up to date, it defeats the idea of providing it. And seeking out permission to distribute specific binaries is not what Debian is in the business of doing. Please, read http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html, specifically point 9 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The social contract is what Debian *IS*. If you don't like it, you know where to find RedHat. Which probably should hold for everything in main but not non-free or contrib. Those portions are specificly for software that does not meet the DFSG. Well, contrib contains software that meets the DFSG but depends on stuff that doesn't. Anything in non-free is guaranteed to be non-DFSG compliant. As long as we're actually permitted to distribute it. As people have tried to tell you, the pine maintainer (or someone else, i forget which) noticed that the pine licence seemed to forbid distribution of modified binaries. Concerned, the pine maintainer contacted UWash and found out that that WAS their intent. To comply with their wishes and with the licence (and to keep Debian from getting sued), pine binaries were removed from our servers. The prior inclusion of pine binaries was IN ERROR and AGAINST THE STATED WISHES OF THE PINE AUTHORS. We've corrected the error and don't intend to make it again. We've been scrutinizing other copyrights for similar problems (I know the TeTeX packages have had particular problems with poorly licenced code). -- Scott K. Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 11:00:06PM -0400, Colin Telmer wrote: : I have been using pine for years (no nfs spool) and have never ever : experienceed corruption and mail loss due to pine. message loss to me is : more of a mta problem, but that's beside the point. Yes, it is more of an MTA problem. Pine doesn't do Maildir without lots of patching. Even at that, it's not real stable. : Weak arguments. Ahh.. I see you haven't done much support for large groups of clueless users... -- Jason Costomiris | Linux... [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Find out what you've been missing http://www.jasons.org/~jcostom/ | while you've been rebooting Windows NT. #include disclaimer.h | --Infoworld -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: COMPROMISE? PINE Debian Package
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) pgp86cYesKUxf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Pine w/ maildir (Was: PINE Debian Package)
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:55:08AM -0400, Jason Costomiris wrote: : I have been using pine for years (no nfs spool) and have never ever : experienceed corruption and mail loss due to pine. message loss to me is : more of a mta problem, but that's beside the point. Yes, it is more of an MTA problem. Pine doesn't do Maildir without lots of patching. Even at that, it's not real stable. Maildir'd pine is stable.. It doesn't completely WORK, but. How does it not work? Pine can't delete maildir folders, only use them. Pine can apparently make new folders Maildir format, but this behavior will include postponed messages and the sent-mail folder. At the end of the month, pine can't rename a maildir sent-mail and you can not resume a postponed message in a maildir. Seems pine will sometimes be willing to create maildirs, but only if you tell it to always use maildirs, see above bugs. It's quite stable though. = I used it for some time. I suspect these limitations could be fixed, but I kinda won't be expecting to see them till the pine maildir patches are updated to include fixes for these things. : Weak arguments. Ahh.. I see you haven't done much support for large groups of clueless users... Most clueless users find pine difficult to use. g That being the case, giving them something more complex is simply frightening. pgpEFZqVSCjCQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package (maildir support)
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 01:51:06AM -0800, Adam Shand wrote: Emailled to you. I am guessing we'll soon see the patch applied to the procmail in slink, which is cool by me. = you got me again... what is slink? That's the new unstable. There was a request for objection to the patch getting in to hamm, which would be just cool by me anyway. not sure, check www.qmail.org, they list most of the patches there. ya ... nothing for cucipop though ... have to keep searching. AltaVista for +cucipop +maildir. pgp6ir94zICwj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package (maildir support)
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:07:44PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote: Emailled to you. I am guessing we'll soon see the patch applied to the procmail in slink, which is cool by me. = you got me again... what is slink? Next release of debian... bo-- hamm -- slink 1.3.1 2.0 2.1 (?) I think 2.1 is the next version.. Anyone? I don't know.. If we have stable 2.2 kernel, apt, gnome, and a number of other usefuls ready in slink I'd be one of the first to say all of that might constitute a 3.0, but we'll see closer to time I guess. = pgpflTGCTe472.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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. Rick -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 04:15:53PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: : Mutt is, at best, a very weak replacement for Pine. As for text email : clients, Pine has no equal and is free enough for most uses. If Debian : is going to start producing a crappy distribution just because it is free, : I will pay for one that is not. Weak? Uh, many of us feel that mutt is quite an order of magnitude better. I am among those who feel this way. Why is mutt better? 1) Native support for Maildir format mailboxen 2) *much* more configurable than pine 3) Doesn't have the nasty habit of wanting to post to a newsgroup when someone replies (not follows) to your article 4) Doesn't try to pass itself off as a second rate newsreader 5) Support for color 6) Support for threaded discussions (great for mailing lists!) 7) It's less filling: /home/jcostom$ ls -l /usr/local/bin/pine -rwxr-xr-x 1 root users 1193128 Jan 17 12:47 /usr/local/bin/pine /home/jcostom$ ls -l /usr/local/bin/mutt -rwxr-sr-x 1 root mail 320948 Mar 15 22:44 /usr/local/bin/mutt -- Jason Costomiris | Linux... [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Find out what you've been missing http://www.jasons.org/~jcostom/ | while you've been rebooting Windows NT. #include disclaimer.h | --Infoworld -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 04:40:12PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: : On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jason Costomiris wrote: : : 1) Native support for Maildir format mailboxen : : and that is better? Yes. I'm one of those nuts who believes in reliable delivery with an NFS mounted mail spool. :-) Also much more resilient, and less prone to corruption and message loss. : 2) *much* more configurable than pine : : But is missing some key items. : : Put another way. If you have to support a couple of hundred relative unix : clueless, I would rather they use pine than mutt. I will admit that it : has sveraql months since I last took a look at it, I am willing to have : another look. If they indeed are unix clueless, it will take forever for them to fathom the idea of a VTY. I can hear it now... pine? Do I get that through FTP or is it that telenet thingamajig? If they are indeed unix clueless, you'll run a POP or IMAP server and give them their pretty Windoze or Mac mailers. -- Jason Costomiris | Linux... [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Find out what you've been missing http://www.jasons.org/~jcostom/ | while you've been rebooting Windows NT. #include disclaimer.h | --Infoworld -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 08:00:12PM -0400, Jason Costomiris wrote: : Mutt is, at best, a very weak replacement for Pine. As for text email : clients, Pine has no equal and is free enough for most uses. If Debian : is going to start producing a crappy distribution just because it is free, : I will pay for one that is not. Weak? Uh, many of us feel that mutt is quite an order of magnitude better. I am among those who feel this way. Why is mutt better? I'll agree with that---with some caveats... 1) Native support for Maildir format mailboxen This is the biggest reason I didn't give up on mutt. Pine CAN support them, but the support is more a kludge right now. 2) *much* more configurable than pine and *much* *HARDER* to configure than pine. Frustrated me to no end, really. Finally someone sent me a .muttrc that was close to what I wanted and I've been able to figure the rest out. 3) Doesn't have the nasty habit of wanting to post to a newsgroup when someone replies (not follows) to your article 4) Doesn't try to pass itself off as a second rate newsreader I actually used pine's newsreader one time. Liked it, was fast and simple. But then, spam took over usenet and pine just CAN'T keep up. I guess it's not a problem then that I never got pine to WORK with news. 5) Support for color This is as much a curse as a benefit, though it's listed as a feature, I have calmed the colors a bit but kept them. 6) Support for threaded discussions (great for mailing lists!) I'll reserve judgement about this being a good or bad thing. It's been handy for mailing lists yes, but I would like to disable it other places. It's probably possible to do it--don't ask me how just yet. 7) It's less filling: /home/jcostom$ ls -l /usr/local/bin/pine -rwxr-xr-x 1 root users 1193128 Jan 17 12:47 /usr/local/bin/pine /home/jcostom$ ls -l /usr/local/bin/mutt -rwxr-sr-x 1 root mail 320948 Mar 15 22:44 /usr/local/bin/mutt You CLEARLY use maildir, doncha? pgpAzzgTKuq5l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 11:00:06PM -0400, Colin Telmer wrote: Yes. I'm one of those nuts who believes in reliable delivery with an NFS mounted mail spool. :-) Also much more resilient, and less prone to corruption and message loss. I have been using pine for years (no nfs spool) and have never ever experienceed corruption and mail loss due to pine. message loss to me is more of a mta problem, but that's beside the point. That is exactly the point: The MTA can lose mail. maildir is a format for a mailbox that makes it really hard for the MTA to lose it.. Sendmail will still lose it if you screw up the configuration enough, but. = Currently the only way to use maildir with sendmail is via the (excellent) procmail patch. If they indeed are unix clueless, it will take forever for them to fathom the idea of a VTY. I can hear it now... pine? Do I get that through FTP or is it that telenet thingamajig? If they are indeed unix clueless, you'll run a POP or IMAP server and give them their pretty Windoze or Mac mailers. Weak arguments. Moreover, most of it is subjective. I would prefer that _both_ pine and mutt be available. Let users decide. The only supported mailer at Queen's University is pine. Other places other choices. The emacs mailer vm is great, but do we want to impose people learn emacs to read mail? Basically pine is much more widely used then mutt. I think that even Elm beats out mutt in that regard. so why not _try_ to offer them all (I emphasis try as UoW seems to be making this hard to do with pine - your argument above is valid if the average user has to patch and compile it also:)). I'll agree with that, but there is still a reason why pine is now a source pkg thing. I still say, do it like qmail-src and let people deal with it. I don't mean to fuel the debate, but pine also threads:) Try $ and o while reading debian-user stuff. Mutt's threading is real. Pine tries and does okay much of the time. pgpGLvOC9EvKh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
6) Support for threaded discussions (great for mailing lists!) I'll reserve judgement about this being a good or bad thing. It's been handy for mailing lists yes, but I would like to disable it other places. It's probably possible to do it--don't ask me how just yet. Ask and ye shall receive. Just set the default sort method (I use date-sent), and then override with sort=threads for specific lists. Here's part of my .muttrc for handling mailing lists: mailboxes ! +debian-user +prestige +mutt +debian-devel +debian-pilot +spam lists \ mutt-users \ debian-user \ debian-devel \ debian-pilot \ prestige-users # commands for specific folders # default sort by date, threads for mailing lists folder-hook . set sort=date-sent # everything in the folder cam from the list, so use from address, not list # original'set hdr_format=%4C %Z %[%b %e] %-15.15L (%4l) %s' folder-hook . 'set hdr_format=%4C %Z %[%b %e] %-15.15F (%4l) %s' folder-hook debian-user set sort=threads folder-hook debian-devel set sort=threads folder-hook debian-pilot set sort=threads folder-hook prestige set sort=threads folder-hook mutt set sort=threads -- Lee Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) Alantro Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
Colin Telmer wrote: I have been using pine for years (no nfs spool) and have never ever experienceed corruption and mail loss due to pine. FWIW, I used pine for years, and experienced frequent data loss. (I use mutt now.) -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package (maildir support)
Currently the only way to use maildir with sendmail is via the (excellent) procmail patch. hi, do you (or anyone else) have link for the maildir patch for procmail? i am in the process of tuning a nfs mounted /var/mail and one of the things i am considering is migrating to maildir format. since i would prefer to stick with sendmail as my mta i believe that procmail is really the only alternative for supporting maildir format with sendmail. also i hear that there are maildir patches for cucipop? does anyone have links for this? any help would be much appreciated, thanks, adam. Internet Alaska - 4050 Lake Otis Adam Shand(v) +1 907 562 4638 Anchorage, AlaskaSystems Administrator (f) +1 907 562 1677 - http://larry.earthlight.co.nz -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Joey Hess wrote: Colin Telmer wrote: I have been using pine for years (no nfs spool) and have never ever experienceed corruption and mail loss due to pine. FWIW, I used pine for years, and experienced frequent data loss. (I use mutt now.) Maybe I have too but just haven't noticed:) Seriously, how does this manifest itself? Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Telmer, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.telmer.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 11:06:47PM -0700, George Bonser 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. Adam Klein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 11:06:47PM -0700, George Bonser 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. Eric Meijer -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Adam Klein wrote: As I understand it, the license forbids distribution of a modified source or binary, but allows the distribution of patch files. Did anyone ask UoW what their position is? I've not heard of them prosecuting, and I'm sure there must be someone there who's aware of the debian package. How about a pine-src package with the patch included, which patches the original sources in the postinst script, builds the binary package and then installs it? I'd like to see some pragmatism on this issue. -thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Colin Telmer wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Joey Hess wrote: Colin Telmer wrote: I have been using pine for years (no nfs spool) and have never ever experienceed corruption and mail loss due to pine. FWIW, I used pine for years, and experienced frequent data loss. (I use mutt now.) Maybe I have too but just haven't noticed:) Seriously, how does this manifest itself? Cheers, Colin. I used pine for a long while and had no problems. The configuration was pcpine (from Washington) on W3.1 with Netmanage Newt for TCP, and Debian 1.x as clients, and the server was/is (uname -a) SunOS tyne 5.4 Generic_101945-50 sun4m sparc which used to run the IMAP2bis or whatever it was called. Then they changed the imapd server to IMAP4rev1 and that's when the trouble started. There are two symptoms and I don't know if they're related but I think they must be. The first is that the client sees emails with bogus date 0 jan 1970 in headers or some such message. The second is that IMAP pseudo-headers have overwritten the start of the real emails. I've here reduced the number of paragraphs from eight to two to save space, and put in x's: --8-- xFrom MAILER-DAEMON Mon Mar 30 12:40:46 1998 xDate: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:40:46 +0100 (BST) xFrom: Mail System Internal Data [EMAIL PROTECTED] xSubject: DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA xX-IMAP: 0890661741 000825 xStatus: RO x xThis text is part of the internal format of your mail folder, and is not xa real message. It is created automatically by the mail system software. xIf deleted, important folder data will be lost, and it will be re-created xwith the data reset to initial values. x xStatus: O \ xX-Status: | xX-Keywords: xX-UID: 0 x| these should x| not be here xStatus: O xX-Status: xX-Keywords: | xX-UID: 0/ x [EMAIL PROTECTED]; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, Mar 23, 1998 at 09:38:53AM -0600 xResent-Message-ID: IHo-1B.A.9WG.7zsF1@murphy xResent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org xX-Mailing-List: debian-user@lists.debian.org archive/latest/882 xX-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org xPrecedence: list xResent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] xStatus: RO xX-Status: xX-Keywords: xX-UID: 64 x xOn Mon, Mar 23, 1998 at 09:38:53AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: x On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Bill Leach wrote: x --8-- My rationalisation of this behaviour is that I was reading this file as incoming mail, and as I deleted each message in pine, imapd was inserting these four-line paragraphs to indicate the fact. Meanwhile, sendmail would deliver some new mail which involves updating the fifth line of the file (I think it's the number of unseen messages). If a pointer was left there, my subsequent deletions could write paragraphs to the wrong place. Alternatively, all this is the product of an overactive imagination... I started using procmail to deliver my mail to multiple inboxes, and could watch procmail report its file-locking activities: procmail: [9792] Thu Apr 9 13:07:30 1998 procmail: Match on ^X-Mailing-List:[EMAIL PROTECTED] procmail: Locking Debian.lock procmail: Assigning LASTFOLDER=Debian procmail: Opening Debian procmail: Acquiring kernel-lock procmail: Unlocking Debian.lock From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 9 13:07:30 1998 Subject: Re: hanging on boot; NFS problem in 2.0 Folder: Debian 2714 procmail: Notified comsat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/export/home/dww2/Inbox/Debian but this didn't avoid corruption occurring. I like pine enough to make some compromises which include: . only running pine on the sun (tyne) which means 3.91, not 3.96 . delivering my email folders from the files procmail writes to the files pine reads, using a perl script that dotlocks and checks that I'm not running pine or imapd when it runs . losing pine notification, but I get this back through the procmail log file. Actually it does have some advantages - it makes it very easy and safe to zip and ftp my entire incoming mail to my home machine and read it offline with debian's pine. Cheers, -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151 Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Thomas Lakofski wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Adam Klein wrote: As I understand it, the license forbids distribution of a modified source or binary, but allows the distribution of patch files. Did anyone ask UoW what their position is? I've not heard of them prosecuting, and I'm sure there must be someone there who's aware of the debian package. How about a pine-src package with the patch included, which patches the original sources in the postinst script, builds the binary package and then installs it? That's the proposed solution right now. Adam Klein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 04:40:12PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jason Costomiris wrote: Weak? Uh, many of us feel that mutt is quite an order of magnitude better. I am among those who feel this way. Why is mutt better? Because it is faster. I still was able to read 30+ MB mailboxes (debian bug reports ;) without struggle. Over 7000 messages, and after building and sorting the index (which took half a minute on my pentium 100), I have instant access to evry mail. And this with only 16 MB RAM. Pine has a lot of problems with just 2-5 MB mail boxes, and most of my mailboxes are around 7 MB most of the time. Over telnet, Pine managed to hung every five minutes for a few minutes, with the cursor at the N of the bottom menu line. This was also a problem of the university net, but it was worse in pine then elsewhere. 2) *much* more configurable than pine But is missing some key items. It is actively under development. You should really give it a try and post your experience to the author. This is a big plus. (it is free software, too). Put another way. If you have to support a couple of hundred relative unix clueless, I would rather they use pine than mutt. I will admit that it has sveraql months since I last took a look at it, I am willing to have another look. It has improved a lot. You should give it a try! I'm not sure... personally I dislike Pine's interface, but that is a matter of taste. They don't differ too much anyway. BTW, George: You said nasty things on this list. You are free to change your distribution, but please refrain from prejudices --- we actually try our best to include every software available. But sometimes we are not allowed to do so. Blame the upstream author for it (read: ask him politely to change license). *We* can't change the license, and we will not change our policy for pine or other non-free software. If you dislike this, there are other distributions that can make commercial agreements with upstream authors --- we are a voluntarily effort, and can not do such agreements (instead, we request that other's must have the same right as the Debian distribution. We don't like exceptions made for us, and will not make use of them). This is to protect *your* right to distribute the Debian distribution. Disclaimer: I do not speak on behalve of the Debian project, but you can find the official position in the dfsg, which I won't quote, but it contains text that is aequivalent to what I said above. -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
Colin Telmer wrote: Maybe I have too but just haven't noticed:) Seriously, how does this manifest itself? Cheers, Colin. I have a .procmailrc that plays sounds when I recive mail in various mailboxes. It would play the sound, I'd go to the mailbox, and there would be no mail there. I confirmed several times that someone had sent me mail and I didn't get it. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
Marcus Brinkmann wrote: better. I am among those who feel this way. Why is mutt better? Because it is faster. I still was able to read 30+ MB mailboxes (debian bug reports ;) without struggle. Over 7000 messages, and after building and sorting the index (which took half a minute on my pentium 100), I have instant access to evry mail. And this with only 16 MB RAM. I have read this thread a bit...after reading this testimony I am very muchinterested in mutt! I got mutt and installed it about a week ago...along with pine. I really like pine so...it will take some convincing to get me over to mutt there are a few features of pine I like and if mutt has them then I would be happy to switch to mutt firstly I need the transparent integration of PGP that I get from pine + pinepgp scripts (ok not need but it makes my life a hell of allot easier!) I know this can be done with mutthow do I set that up? (are there any docs on it?) also... I am getting used to pine keybindins...and also...the major thing I found lakcing in mutt was menus I like how pine has that menu always there so I can see what commands are available (it helps for quick learning of how to use it) also...its nice to have a list of my mailboxes that I can scroll through the last feature I would really use is the ability to have it automatically move read messages into another folder that way I have procmail deliver my messages sorted by folder... and all I have to do is goto my incomming folder for that list to read it then if I want an old one just goto th read one I know some of these features are a bit extranous but they make my life easier (sorry if some of these lines are too long...at work I hafta use nutscrape for mail) I'm not sure... personally I dislike Pine's interface, but that is a matter of taste. They don't differ too much anyway. Well there is no acounting for taste :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Tue, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:33:47PM +0200, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: I contacted washington.edu and they really do not want binaries to be distributed if they do not approve the patches *first*. If we do not have the freedom to apply whatever patches we like, including security or bug fixes, without an approval from the University of Washington, then we will have to distribute the patches without the binaries. I wonder: Could we all band together and complain *loudly* but *politely*? ;-) This is very very frustrating, and it is giving both Pine and Debian a bad reputation. They are going to keep losing users if they keep this stupid No patched binaries thing up. It does nothing but to show how stubborn, non-trusting and non-free (libre) they are, and it has become so much of a frustration that many of us here choose to use mutt instead. Should we get a petition and a nice request letter going? :-) Anthony -- Anthony Fok Tung-LingCivil and Environmental Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Alberta, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep smiling! *^_^* Come visit Our Lady of Victory Camp -- http://olvc.home.ml.org/ or http://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/OLVC/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Anthony Fok wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:33:47PM +0200, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote: I contacted washington.edu and they really do not want binaries to be distributed if they do not approve the patches *first*. If we do not have the freedom to apply whatever patches we like, including security or bug fixes, without an approval from the University of Washington, then we will have to distribute the patches without the binaries. I wonder: Could we all band together and complain *loudly* but *politely*? ;-) This is very very frustrating, and it is giving both Pine and Debian a bad reputation. Not Debian, because Debian is a free software Linux distribution, and pine is non-free. This is like saying that not having Microsoft Word as part of Debian is giving both Microsoft and Debian a bad reputation ;-) It could give bad reputation on the eyes of those who think that Debian is just one more Linux distribution. But considering that Debian is 100% free, I don't see any bad reputation on the Debian side, really. They are going to keep losing users if they keep this stupid No patched binaries thing up. It does nothing but to show how stubborn, non-trusting and non-free (libre) they are, and it has become so much of a frustration that many of us here choose to use mutt instead. Not our fault, I think. People should know that pine is not free. I would switch to mutt right now but I'm already very used to pine, so everything I can do is to recommend mutt over pine to my friends. Should we get a petition and a nice request letter going? :-) RMS has tried it several times, I think, without any success. Do you really think we would succeed? Any special reason why they would hear us now but not before? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNT+a/SqK7IlOjMLFAQH85AP/QLrTHR2hr38wgfhhZ91+BE1buBFK4Nnj f0bkuNYv1x7IyvtsTKLTmKIP4WbwmaijPK83Iqdj0qJUrqcAc6LRMymP1EoPVQuU JjS6uRzN+aMiH/iP64Cbfd+uRGb0uZuI0AtjpUOGxXzb9prF9fPdIx09yD57/Rtp JfaRBO318l0= =xp4y -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
Should we get a petition and a nice request letter going? :-) Anthony you bet,count me in. Alain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 12:06:25AM -0400, Lee Bradshaw wrote: 6) Support for threaded discussions (great for mailing lists!) I'll reserve judgement about this being a good or bad thing. It's been handy for mailing lists yes, but I would like to disable it other places. It's probably possible to do it--don't ask me how just yet. Ask and ye shall receive. Just set the default sort method (I use date-sent), and then override with sort=threads for specific lists. Here's part of my .muttrc for handling mailing lists: [..] Much appreciated! I thought something like that would do it. Hmm, is there a similar way to make my reply-to or similar header reflect to whom the message was sent? ie, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] knghtbrd@(localhost | icarus2 | icarus2.dyn.ml.org) : Would have the reply-to automagically set? I suppose I could set a default for certain folders using the same technique you used for threads. pgpKpQLsvEFHD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Adam Klein wrote: As I understand it, the license forbids distribution of a modified source or binary, but allows the distribution of patch files. Adam Klein Agreed, but is debian changing the actual source or are they only CONFIGURING the source so it will compile and install in the proper locations? Why don't you look at the .diff.gz file? :-) Currently it is 27967 bytes long, compressed. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNT+lsSqK7IlOjMLFAQFBNgP/TQ91n+hZo2KGq0qlnOZQ1mldkt9GvsIl QU1Kw1E1j8GcrFbv2TVrEX/igOVettSth0Oz+NikMGz4j+NNqeNCDzhZ/Z3jTerx 2er5SXVM8dBy+FhyIdPap9fYXFBt4EabgtpHwaPRbuzNpJ+FbM6EBMzFTQhQCopq yfG17Q4Ahn8= =gX5F -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: [ snip ] : : *We* can't change the license, and we will not change our policy : for pine or other non-free software. : : You already DID change your policy, I am asking to have it changed BACK. : If the Debian diff is nothing more that items needed to get it to compile : and the locations of where things are to be put in the filesystem, that is : not a change to pine, those are configuration items. I can not see how : configuration conflicts with the license. Now there was a what-if : question raised about what if debian decided to make a change to the : source code for security reasons or whatever and I say that you should : burn that bridge when you come to it. Words mean things. Words used in a license definitely mean things, especially when the legal interpretation of those words does not mean what the author intended them to mean. Nevertheless, it is the legal interpretation that must be followed, and not what the author meant. Debian is trying to be consistent with licensing. If that means ignoring the prevalent attitude of To hell with it; the license is unclear but our users want it as opposed to following the letter of the law, I agree with the latter. So does Debian, apparently. A Pine binary deb would be cool. So would a qmail deb. But, legal interpretation of the licenses does not allow distributing modified binaries, unless they are approved (reread the license and you will see that is indeed the case). It's not like someone is saying you can't use Pine or qmail ... there are source packages! Compiling a source package is not the end of the world ... a few years ago it was the only way to install most software in Linux iirc. : If you dislike this, there are other distributions that can make commercial : agreements with upstream authors --- we are a voluntarily effort, and can : not do such agreements (instead, we request that other's must have the same : right as the Debian distribution. We don't like exceptions made for us, and : will not make use of them). This is to protect *your* right to distribute : the Debian distribution. : : I am completely aware of this. I have been an advocate of Debian : GNU/Linux for a couple of years now. I see what is happening now as : something entirely different. It APPEARS as if Debian is actually looking : for excuses to make non-free or less-free software more difficult to : install and use in order to promote wider use of the free software even : when it is clearly not as good or not as easy to use. I would like some : reassurance that this is not happening. If it is, I will save myself a : lot of time and bail now. Debian isn't looking for excuses, they're reading the licenses. Surely you don't advocate illegal activity? : Debian has the best packaging system and the best integrated distribution. : It should concentrate on getting as much as possible into the distribution : and not on playing politics to build a cross on which to crucify it. I : have a project I am working on that will be based on Debian. Yes it will : have Pine and that will be the default text mail reader for the user and : yes, it will have Pico and that will be the default text-mode editor for : new users. Removing Pine does not make it any better, only adds another : step in the configuration of the system. It is not going to promote the : use of any alternative software in my case, it just makes the cost of : using Debian go up a bit. Pine is not removed; it's just not present as a binary package. Big deal. Compile the package and put it in your local section on your own server ... then it will be available as a binary package for any system you configure. I have an ftp/NFS server which mirrors Debian, and that makes configuration of future systems quite easy. The apt and http methods make retrieving files from multiple servers quite easy. Debian does indeed have the best packaging system I've ever seen. The stability of the system is also the best I've ever seen. : There is free and there is free-enough. Politically Correct Software is : not a goal. Utillity for the end user is. I don't understand why following a license decreases user utility. It may add work for the sysadmin ... By the way, the main goals of Debian are nicely laid out at http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract.html -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 12:07:15PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: BTW, George: You said nasty things on this list. You are free to change your distribution, but please refrain from prejudices --- we actually try our best to include every software available. But sometimes we are not allowed to do so. Blame the upstream author for it (read: ask him politely to change license). When did the license for Pine change? As far as I know the only thing that changed was Debian's interpretation of it. I think it will be the only Linux distribution without a Pine binary. I also do not feel I have said anything nasty. I have tried to point out where Debian is making what could turn out to be a serious mistake in its thinking and correct it. You are mixing things up here. First, Debian as a whole has not changed the dfsg (which is its distribution policy) since the creation. It has changed the interpretation of contrib and non-free, though. To the better. The current situation is that contrib are dfsg-free packages that comply with the package policy, but depend on non-free stuff. non-free are packages that comply to the packaging policy, but fail the dfsg in some points, and we are allowed to distribute it on our ftp server. When you know complain about the removed pine package, then you have two direct solutions (beside the solution to make your own pine package and put it on a derived distribution, as you are describing below): 1) You can ask the maintainer of the package why he made this decision. 2) You can ask the upstream authors to clarify/change the license. I think ranting on a public list instead is not very kind. The vast majority of uses of Unix systems in this world have no clue how to edit a dotfile. They can't even use vi let alone emacs. I see a trend towards alienation of users without a degree in Computer Science. I absolutely do NOT want to see Debian head off on some Slackwarian direction. Then you may want to put work into easier use of Debian (you say that you are actually doing so, I read below). I remember that you do great things on debian-user, asking questions etc. This is the way to go. You can even put a deb package of pine somewhere on ftp you own. But trying to push a volunteer (or even a group) in the direction you like will just not work. To be more concrete: If the maintainer of a package decides that it is too high risk to put a package in non-free because of the copyright, he is free doing so. I did not speak with either the maintainer nor with the upstream authors about this issue, so I'll not impose any judgement on either. *We* can't change the license, and we will not change our policy for pine or other non-free software. You already DID change your policy, I am asking to have it changed BACK. There is no need to shout. I stay with what I said. There is no way you can force the debian maintainer to put it back, but you can ask nicely for the reasons and if there is a solution. You can even become a maintainer of pine for yourself, and get the diff's ratificated by upstream authors. If the Debian diff is nothing more that items needed to get it to compile and the locations of where things are to be put in the filesystem, that is not a change to pine, those are configuration items. I can not see how configuration conflicts with the license. Now there was a what-if question raised about what if debian decided to make a change to the source code for security reasons or whatever and I say that you should burn that bridge when you come to it. There are two issues: One issue is the copyright (the procedure you describe above may work for some time), the other is that there has to be a volunteer to do it --- no volunteer, no package. If you dislike this, there are other distributions that can make commercial agreements with upstream authors --- we are a voluntarily effort, and can not do such agreements (instead, we request that other's must have the same right as the Debian distribution. We don't like exceptions made for us, and will not make use of them). This is to protect *your* right to distribute the Debian distribution. I am completely aware of this. I have been an advocate of Debian GNU/Linux for a couple of years now. I see what is happening now as something entirely different. It APPEARS as if Debian is actually looking for excuses to make non-free or less-free software more difficult to install and use in order to promote wider use of the free software even when it is clearly not as good or not as easy to use. I can hardly think of anything to say about it, beside that it is just not true. The packages in non-free are just as well maintained as the packages in the main distribution, and they are equally hard or easy to install. I think you act overly paranoid here. I would like some reassurance that this is not happening. If it is, I will save
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 11:06:47PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: Currently the only way to use maildir with sendmail is via the (excellent) procmail patch. Or you can use exim but that is a whole other thread. Also, what about systems where the spool and the home directory are BOTH NFS mounts? Actually, I never deal with that situation. I like a central mail server with a local spool and user home accounts that are really NFS automounts. In most of the situations I work in, the user's home directory is not even local to the user's own desktop machine, it is an NFS automount. That is why IMAP is used. We want no email to physically reside on any of the workstations, it resides either in the main mail spool or on the user's home directory that lives on a large Auspex file server. Maildir deals with that as well, if I recall. The maildir FORMAT deals with NFS. The location of it (home dir) is a security thing. 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. Yes, on the part of the people writing their licenses. qmail cannot be distributed in binary form without permission at all. This makes it very non-free. Pine can be distributed as pristine binary, but now with Debian patches (many of those bugfixes..) Both are really Not Very Bright licensing terms. I'll deal with qmail since I like it enough to put up with it. I have pine on the system and put up with it because I have users who like pine (though since I have now a clue as to how to configure mutt (a nice user friendly config program like the one in pine would be nice) I am happy to to do so for the added features, like the ability to thread or not thread certain groups, better mime support, PGP integration, clean support for non-mbox mail formats, and more still I'm just learning.) pgpCpNdHIkx0C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package (maildir support)
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 12:38:19AM -0800, Adam Shand wrote: Currently the only way to use maildir with sendmail is via the (excellent) procmail patch. hi, Hi back = do you (or anyone else) have link for the maildir patch for procmail? i am in the process of tuning a nfs mounted /var/mail and one of the things i am considering is migrating to maildir format. since i would prefer to stick with sendmail as my mta i believe that procmail is really the only alternative for supporting maildir format with sendmail. Emailled to you. I am guessing we'll soon see the patch applied to the procmail in slink, which is cool by me. = If you unpack the the source package for procmail, you can then apply the maildir patch directly and just buildpackage from there. I would stop to change version numbers and edit changelog first, but that goes without saying. also i hear that there are maildir patches for cucipop? does anyone have links for this? not sure, check www.qmail.org, they list most of the patches there. pgp4GbW1vGDds.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
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. = pgp0fn2WqDGa2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 08:43:31AM -0700, Adam Klein wrote: How about a pine-src package with the patch included, which patches the original sources in the postinst script, builds the binary package and then installs it? That's the proposed solution right now. Yeah, and I like it. = Despite the millions of compiler warnings pine compiles cleanly enough. pgp9bejF7O9xr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: : On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Nathan E Norman wrote: : : I don't understand why following a license decreases user utility. It : may add work for the sysadmin ... : : No, it is the CHANGING of the interpretation of the license to fit the : current agenda (real or perceived ... I am not sure which) that chaps my : hips. The license is the same. Qmail SPECIFICLY does not allow : distribution of binaries. Pine does not allow binary distribution of : derivative works. I am saying that the changes Debian makes do not : consititute a derivative work, they are simply configuration items. Gosh, perhaps the license was not being interpreted correctly before? I quote, from the file CPYRIGHT (found in the original source tarball) Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution. It doesn't say You can distribute modified binaries if they make Pine adhere to the FHS, make local users happy, or make Pine crash less often. It says that you do _not_ have the right to distribute derivative works, but unrestricted distribution of patch files is ok. It does _not_ say you can apply said patches and distribute the result (a derivative work). -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 08:43:31AM -0700, Adam Klein wrote: How about a pine-src package with the patch included, which patches the original sources in the postinst script, builds the binary package and then installs it? That's the proposed solution right now. Yeah, and I like it. = Despite the millions of compiler warnings pine compiles cleanly enough. You've obviously stumbled upon a new meaning of the phrase cleanly enough that I was not previously aware of. I've come to the conclusion that one should not compile pine with -Wall if one values their sanity. -- Scott K. Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
That is what the non-free portion of the distribution is for. BTW, if Microsoft produced Word for Linux, I would probably buy it. Geez you sound like an agitator. It could give bad reputation on the eyes of those who think that Debian is just one more Linux distribution. But considering that Debian is 100% free, I don't see any bad reputation on the Debian side, really. The way it has always been understod was that the main portion of the distribution would always be 100% free. Non-free stuff goes in non-free and stuff that is free but depends on non-free stuff goes in contrib. If Debian wants to make non-free a source-only archive, it is going to greatly increase my costs for installing systems because I happen to be a fan of quite a few things in there. I assume they only intend to do this wherethe law requires it. Yes, our fault. If any distribution of software takes a political stand and alienates half of its users or makes the distribution more difficult to use or more difficult to configure and it looses a significant number of its users and fails to attract new users at the rate it did before, it soon fades into insignificance. Choosing it simply because it is politically correct is not going to happen except for a few zelots. I You underestimate our numbers. thought the rise and fall of world socialism taught you that. You might Don't get too caried away. provide a free application but if it sucks or if there is a better non-free one available, guess which one will get used. If you think making Personally, I use GNU software over 'soft-free' software even when the GNU stuff has a steeper learning curve and/or rougher/fewer features. I've found it to be worth it in the end, since the GNU stuff usually catches up when it is not untimatly superior in the first place. More importantly, GNU software is less vulnerable to desertion or commercial assimilation than things licensed other ways (look what happened to spice). pico/pine is a case-in-point. They are poor programs really, and when the University of Whatsit suddenly gets tired of maintining them, the last versions will likely crumble to dust. the non-free one more difficult to obtain will drive development toward the free application, you are making a flawed decision. People will simply expend more energey to get the better product and if they have to do it too often will call your product junk because it requires the expense of too much energy to get the good applications. Well, not everyone feels this way, even if that was the the driving force behind these decisions. People should know that pine is not free. I would switch to mutt right now but I'm already very used to pine, so everything I can do is to recommend mutt over pine to my friends. Everyone KNOWS Pine is not free. It has ALWAYS lived in non-free. Free is not the issue. Pine is BETTER. If a newbie asks me for advice on a good, easy to use, text-based mail reader I am NOT going to say Use mutt, because it is free, I am going to say Use Pine because it is easy. I would like to see many more COMMERCIAL apps for Linux too. When someone comes out with a half-baked free replacement for StarOffice is Debian going to drop the StarOffice loader from the distro? WHat about the nifty config for alien that knows how to install Applixware? Will that go away too? This crap of My system is difficult to use, a horror to configure and klunky as hell, but I am a Good Communist and use only software approved by the Central Committee will not fly far. Again, if free is to be a substitute for good, oh well. There are good free licenses and bad ones. Pine's license is apparently one of the latter. You have to try to follow both types. Britton Kerin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 02:19:47PM -0400, Stephen Carpenter wrote: I got mutt and installed it about a week ago...along with pine. I really like pine so...it will take some convincing to get me over to mutt there are a few features of pine I like and if mutt has them then I would be happy to switch to mutt firstly I need the transparent integration of PGP that I get from pine + pinepgp scripts (ok not need but it makes my life a hell of allot easier!) I know this can be done with mutthow do I set that up? (are there any docs on it?) mutt uses mime/pgp. This message is in that format. You will need mutt-i from the non-us dist, but that's doable. If you're using procmail there is a /usr/doc/mutt-i/pgp-Notes.txt.gz file--read it. If you're using procmail, you can make mutt see non-mime pgp stuff too. If you don't use procmail, well, start. = also... I am getting used to pine keybindins...and also...the major thing I found lakcing in mutt was menus I like how pine has that menu always there so I can see what commands are available (it helps for quick learning of how to use it) ^j will justify your paragraphs which cleans them up a lot. = For keybindings, include the /usr/doc/mutt/examples/Pine.rc in your .muttrc file. Or better, zcat /usr/doc/mutt/examples/sample.muttrc.gz ~/.muttrc, open that file up in your favorite text editor and insert the pine.rc just after the set's. There is one line you will have to comment out because it's changed or been removed (not sure which since I don't use the tagged message stuff) The line is #bind index ; tag-message I also comment out another from Pine.rc: #bind pager \n noop # PINE prints No default action for this menu. Enter will once again scroll like it does in less. also...its nice to have a list of my mailboxes that I can scroll through the last feature I would really use is the ability to have it automatically move read messages into another folder that way I have procmail deliver my messages sorted by folder... and all I have to do is goto my incomming folder for that list to read it then if I want an old one just goto th read one I know some of these features are a bit extranous but they make my life easier (sorry if some of these lines are too long...at work I hafta use nutscrape for mail) Not a problem. In fact, I have MANY folders, several incoming and several for saved messages. This like (which I changed from the default in sample.muttrc.gz) helps a LOT with that: set sort_browser=alpha # how to sort files in the dir browser The difference between this and the way it works in pine is you press g and then it'll ask you for what folder to open, press ? and you get a l type listing. I'm thinking of rebinding things a bit to get list reply (watch that with mailing lists--I slip sometimes and hit r myself) to work like it did in pine, ie on the r key, make L the filter and make l do a macro of of g?, it might help me cope a little bit. = You get used to the differences quickly. I'm not sure... personally I dislike Pine's interface, but that is a matter of taste. They don't differ too much anyway. Well there is no acounting for taste :) I make mutt's interface very pine-like, but I keep some of the slrnisms I rather liked. pgpzAtJW6k3ub.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
Hi, George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Nathan E Norman wrote: I don't understand why following a license decreases user utility. It may add work for the sysadmin ... George No, it is the CHANGING of the interpretation of the license to George fit the current agenda (real or perceived ... I am not sure George which) that chaps my hips. The license is the same. Qmail George SPECIFICLY does not allow distribution of binaries. Pine does George not allow binary distribution of derivative works. I am George saying that the changes Debian makes do not consititute a George derivative work, they are simply configuration items. The earlier interpretation was incorrect, and would have left debian open for litigation. I recall Santiago posting here saying that he did indeed talk to the U of Wa and they did not want modified binaries spread (I do not have the details, but I trust Santiago). So we made an mistake earlier. We have now corrected it. We do not want to revert to an illegal act, especially that it is now no longer in good faith, since we know about the licence. Would you care to agree to indemnify Debian against all lawsuits in the future? Can you legally do that anyway? manoj -- Flee at once, all is discovered. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 01:48:40PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: When you know complain about the removed pine package, then you have two direct solutions (beside the solution to make your own pine package and put it on a derived distribution, as you are describing below): Why do you continue to avoid the question? because I'm not in a position to tell you the answer. I'm not and was never the maintainer of pine, and I never spoke with the upstream author. In fact, I was never interested in pine at all. I just wanted to clarify a few things. Debian has distributed Pine in non-free for about two years. As far as I can tell, Pine's license has not changed. It is Debian's POLICY towards that license that has changed. I already tried to explain that Debian did not. It was a single maintainer that choose not to continue distributing a binary version. You seem to be overly nervous. THAT is what I want clarified. Pine is not a new package in the distribution nor is it in a new section of the distribution. Debian has had its policy for a long time. That is why the package has always been put in non-free. Please bear in mind that doing it wrong in the past does not necessarily mean to do it wrong in the future, too. Please don't take this as attack. I do not know if distributing a binary version is wrong. 1) You can ask the maintainer of the package why he made this decision. 2) You can ask the upstream authors to clarify/change the license. I think ranting on a public list instead is not very kind. Then will someone please answer the question? Shooting the messager does not fix the problem. All I want is an clear answer to the simply question: Why did Debian change their interpretation? Debian did not. The maintainer did. Could you please be so kind and look again at suggestion 1) above? I'm sure he has valid reasons for his decision. Then you may want to put work into easier use of Debian (you say that you are actually doing so, I read below). I remember that you do great things on debian-user, asking questions etc. This is the way to go. You can even put a deb package of pine somewhere on ftp you own. I have been an advocate of Debian in many forums for a long time. I started using it when it was a.out. I have some packages locally that I have built for my own use that differ from Debian's and I also get packages from fuller.edu (like gated) that Debian does not have. I am a Unix sysadmin by profession (mostly Solaris which is another reason I use Debian ... I like the init structure) and know what it is like to have to continually respond to requests to configure things for users. I do not look at default items from the point of view on MY useage as much as I do having to maintain it. If I have a few dozen users using text email, I am sure I do not want mutt because I am going to spend a great deal of time configuring it for them. I'm sure you will do a great job providing them a self-build and pre-configured pine package. But trying to push a volunteer (or even a group) in the direction you like will just not work. No! I am trying to put the group BACK where it always HAS been. I do not want to change its direction, I see it already changing and I am trying to put it BACK on course. I see a general change in attitude on the part of the developers that I think is incorrect and potentially damaging and want to try to correct it if possible. I agreed with what the policy always had been before but I don't know if I agree with it now because nobody will spell out what that policy IS. Please do not spout off what it says in the docs, it has said that all along. I want to understand why, suddenly, licenses mean different things than they have in the past. Same license, same debian policy ... different interpretation. Why? What potential does that have for the rest of non-free? It seems as you try to blow this single case up to a problem of the whole distribution. I think you are wrong. I do not see the group going in this direction. To be more concrete: If the maintainer of a package decides that it is too high risk to put a package in non-free because of the copyright, he is free doing so. I did not speak with either the maintainer nor with the upstream authors about this issue, so I'll not impose any judgement on either. Please answer the question. Pine has had that same license nearly forever. Debian has had the same policy. Pine was free-enough to go in non-free as a binary for a long time. Suddenly it is not. Why. Again, please ask the maintainer of the package. I can't and will not speak up for him (but see my personal opinion below). There are two issues: One issue is the copyright (the procedure you describe above may work for some time), the other is that there has to be a volunteer to do it --- no volunteer, no package. Wait, I missed
Re: PINE Debian Package
Hi, George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George Why do you continue to avoid the question? Debian has George distributed Pine in non-free for about two years. As far as I George can tell, Pine's license has not changed. Yes. We goofed. We made and distributed an illegal binary of Pine. We apologize, and hopwethis does not land us in a lawsuit. There. You have an answer. Satisfied? George It is Debian's POLICY towards that license that has George changed. THAT is what I want clarified. That happens not to be the case. The DFSG has not changed since its inception. And the DFSG clearly ratifies current behaviour. Sorry we made a mistake and did not correctly apply it to Pine. Hw many time do I have to apologize for that mistake? George Pine is not a new package in the distribution nor is it in a George new section of the distribution. Debian has had its policy for George a long time. That is why the package has always been put in George non-free. In error. I apologize yet again for doing so. George Then will someone please answer the question? I just did. George Shooting the messager does not fix the problem. All I want is George an clear answer to the simply question: Why did Debian change George their interpretation? Because we happened to actually read the licence now? We should have read it earlier, and for that I (yet again) apologize. I hope no one sues us for not yanking Pine earlier. George No! I am trying to put the group BACK where it always HAS George been. Sorry, that would be breaking the law, in our opinion. Since we are the ones facing litigation, pardon us for having less of the Damn the torpedoes point of view. I apologize for that too. George I do not want to change its direction, I see it already George changing and I am trying to put it BACK on course. I see a George general change in attitude on the part of the developers that George I think is incorrect and potentially damaging and want to try George to correct it if possible. Please elucidate. We are willing to listen to anything that does not sound illegal (distributing modified binary PINE is close enough to being so that I shall be reluctant to change). George I agreed with what the policy always had been before but I George don't know if I agree with it now because nobody will spell George out what that policy IS. The policy is still the DFSG. George Please do not spout off what it says in the docs, it has said George that all along. Sorry, but that is what it has been, and that is waht it is. George I want to understand why, suddenly, licenses mean different George things than they have in the past. Same license, same debian George policy ... different interpretation. Why? What potential does George that have for the rest of non-free? We made an error reading the licence before. I apologize. We shall look good and hard at all licences to make sure any other such errors are caught and excised before we make another major public error like distributing illegal binaries of pine. I guess we should apologize for being merely human, and erring. I do so apologize. George Please answer the question. Pine has had that same license George nearly forever. Debian has had the same policy. Pine was George free-enough to go in non-free as a binary for a long time. George Suddenly it is not. Why. Again, We made an error reading the licence before. I apologize. We shall try not to do so again. We are srry. We are very sorry. George Wait, I missed something .. are you saying that Pine is George without a maintainer? Or are you saying that the maintainer George changed and the new maintainer inpterprets the license George differently than the old one? If that is the case we can hope George to possibly convince the new maintainer that he is full of George hooey and put the binary back. I think that would make Debian George the only major distribution that does not have a Pine binary George package. Yes, Debian _is_ different. We are the only distribution that follows the DFSG. And this is no longer the interpretation of an individual. Anyone can look at the licence, look at the DFSG, look at the litigous nature of the United States, and, Like Santiago, ask the U of Wa, andreach the same conclusion. It shall now have to pass a review on the lists in order to be re-included. I think the possibility is faint. George But Debian has also maintained a non-free portion for stuff George that does not meet the condifitions of the dfsg. Are you George saying that Debian is going to drop non-free and contrib? I am George baffled. The danger of having to remove it? Huh? You seem George confused. main is guaranteed to be 100% free. Non-free is George guaranteed to be 100% non-free. I accepted that when I browse George in the non-free archive. No, we shall
Re: PINE Debian Package
Hi, George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: George The way it has always been understod was that the main George portion of the distribution would always be 100% free. George Non-free stuff goes in non-free and stuff that is free but George depends on non-free stuff goes in contrib. That is entirely correct. George If Debian wants to make non-free a source-only archive, it is George going to greatly increase my costs for installing systems George because I happen to be a fan of quite a few things in there. Please, stop this FUD. Debian is not thinking of making non-free a source only distribution. Except where it is illegal for us to ship binaries. Like Qmail. There are lots of packages in non-free as .deb files. We even make it easy to install qmail on your machine, compiling during the install. So the commitment from Debians side has noit changed. We just discovered that we were doing something illegal (or close enough to desist). George Yes, our fault. If any distribution of software takes a George political stand and alienates half of its users or makes the George distribution more difficult to use or more difficult to George configure and it looses a significant number of its users and George fails to attract new users at the rate it did before, it soon George fades into insignificance. Well, we are sorry, but Debian does take a political stand. We are commited to freedom of software. Our contention is theat, by and large, that also means no compromise on quality. Technicall, I prefer Emacs+gnus or mutt to pine. And mutt is an alternative. Yes, free software may have less features or a steeper learnig curve. Debian is still committed to it. I do apologize for the inconvenience our convitions are causeing you. George Choosing it simply because it is politically correct is not George going to happen except for a few zelots. Us ``zelots'' are content. Unlike brother bill, we are not in it for world domination or market share. We are in it cause it pleases our muse. We are in it for the community, and that means the community of people who suppoirt and ratify the DFSG and the principles behind it. George I thought the rise and fall of world socialism taught you George that. I prefer that to the Laisse Faire approacjh of putting 6 year olds in mines since the tunnels were smaller. ``Nobody is forcing the childen towork in my mines There. Two non-sequetors in sequence. George You might provide a free application but if it sucks or George if there is a better non-free one available, guess which one George will get used. Depends on the person, I guess. George If you think making the non-free one more difficult to obtain George will drive development toward the free application, you are George making a flawed decision. Gues ncftpp did not get released under the GPL after all, huh? Anyway, you gotta understand what makes the developers tick too. We are in it for our ideals, nt for themoney. People can't afford my rates ;-) George People will simply expend more energey to get the better George product and if they have to do it too often will call your George product junk because it requires the expense of too much George energy to get the good applications. We can not control what people call our product. We put ot, for free, what we believe in and want to work on. People make their own decisions. George Amazing how Netscape's release turns RMS from crackpot to George saint, isn't it? You call us crackpots, you label us communists (I think in your mind that is pejorative, for some strange reason), and you expect us to cntinue this discussion civilly? manoj -- This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is now in the American experience... We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications... We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence...by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his farewell address in 1961 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Mon, Apr 20, 1998 at 05:46:10PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: I quote from the copyright: ... Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee to the University of Washington is hereby granted, provided that these legal notices appear in all copies and supporting documentation, that the name Pine is retained, and that the name of the University of Washington is not used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. This software is made available as is. Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution. ... Someone in Debian saw that second paragraph and thought gee, we make a patch file to create our package so we must have a derivative work. We have to distribute the debianization as a separate file in source form only. I think that is incorrect and I further suspect that nobody contacted washington.edu to make sure. I will bet that what debian does is ok since we are doing only what the end user has to do anyhow. It is simply a matter of someone taking an interpretation to an extreme. Nowhere does it say in that copyright that you can not distribute a binary. That is all that debian is doing. I do believe the above paragraph does indicate that only pristine binary and source packages may be distributed. The source packaging seems okay though. What I would suggest be done is to create a package which includes the source, dsc file, etc in /usr/src/pine-src as was done for qmail. Add a quick README.Debian to the thing telling person who has just installed this source package how to build it. You could even give them this script: #!/bin/sh dpkg-source -x pine_3.96L-7.dsc cd pine-3.96L dpkg-buildpackage -B -uc cd .. There, that's it. 4 lines and 3 .deb files later. Then just install the ones you want and call it good. I don't see the problem here. pgpskk6oiV0uc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PINE Debian Package
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: No, I think someone is taking the politics of free software to an extreme. It looks like someone in Debian decided that their patches to configure it resulted in a derivative work and since pine does not allow derivative works to be called pine, it looks like it got yanked. That can't be right. One, because it could still go in non-free, only with a different name. Debian doesn't yank stuff from non-free unless it's illegal to have on the ftp server (in which case it has to be yanked, no matter what our politics). Two, because I just downloaded it. See: http://cgi.debian.org/www-master/debian.org/Packages/stable/non-free/pine.html It may well be gone from frozen, I don't know, but that could be due to bugs not licensing, or the lack of a maintainer. Mutt is, at best, a very weak replacement for Pine. As for text email clients, Pine has no equal and is free enough for most uses. If Debian is going to start producing a crappy distribution just because it is free, I will pay for one that is not. The whole purpose of Debian is to be free, that's more or less the charter of the organization, to the extent that it has one. If it's ever impossible to produce a good free distribution Debian will be discontinued, and you'll not only be able to pay for a good one, you'll have to. Assuming there is one. I do not use Debian because it is free, I use Debian because it has been good. If emphasis is going to be on free rather than good, you are making a mistake. The vision is that the two coincide, and when they don't, they should be made to. In this case, by improving mutt or vm or any of the other zillion mail programs. But until then there's the non-free directory, which includes any non-free programs that are legal to distribute and have maintainers. Freeness is the original purpose of Debian, and by long consensus there is a commitment to that. It's quite simple to start your own dist with the Debian non-free and main directories combined, plus the other stuff of your choice. But there's no point beating your head on a brick wall to change Debian. I have needed to get that off my chest ever since I noticed pine missing. Pine is not an optional compinent for me, it is MANDITORY. There is nothing in the distribution that comes close to replacing it. Relax, I think it's still there. Havoc Pennington http://pobox.com/~hp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, I think someone is taking the politics of free software to an extreme. It looks like someone in Debian decided that their patches to configure it resulted in a derivative work and since pine does not allow derivative works to be called pine, it looks like it got yanked. What about the pine package that /is/ in non-free? It apparently has not been yanked - only moved to non-free, which seems a reasonable place for non-free software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I now HAVE PINE Debian package.. how do I install it?
What a interesting thread my PINE question created... OK I have found a Debian package for pine, pine3.96L-2 the file is pine_3_9.deb its located on the root of /dev/hda7 , a MSDOS partition on my drive, which is not mounted by default, so if I use it in Linux I need to mount it. I want to install this version of PINE, I would prefer using dselect to make sure I have all the needed support files etc., so HOW DO I DO IT? BTW: I found this package by going to the Debian site, and searching the stable packages OK, can some one tell me how to install the thing? I have not had much success.. Thanks for your time / help Ken -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: I now HAVE PINE Debian package.. how do I install it?
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Kenneth F. Ryder III wrote: What a interesting thread my PINE question created... OK I have found a Debian package for pine, pine3.96L-2 the file is pine_3_9.deb its located on the root of /dev/hda7 , a MSDOS partition on my drive, which is not mounted by default, so if I use it in Linux I need to mount it. I want to install this version of PINE, I would prefer using dselect to make sure I have all the needed support files etc., so HOW DO I DO IT? BTW: I found this package by going to the Debian site, and searching the stable packages OK, can some one tell me how to install the thing? I have not had much success.. Thanks for your time / help Once you have mounted the DOS partition so that you can access the .deb file with Linux, just issue dpkg -i pine_3_9.deb This will try to install the .deb file. If you don't have a package that pine depends on, dpkg will complain, tell you what package is needed and fail to install pine. You can then use any method to install the needed package. If you want to find ou on which packages pine depends, use this command: dpkg --info pine_3_9.deb Remco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution. ... Someone in Debian saw that second paragraph and thought gee, we make a patch file to create our package so we must have a derivative work. We have to distribute the debianization as a separate file in source form only. I think that is incorrect and I further suspect that nobody contacted washington.edu to make sure. I contacted washington.edu and they really do not want binaries to be distributed if they do not approve the patches *first*. If we do not have the freedom to apply whatever patches we like, including security or bug fixes, without an approval from the University of Washington, then we will have to distribute the patches without the binaries. I will not accept a special permission which allow us to distribute only a certain release of pine. This is the only way to keep intact our freedom to patch. Nowhere does it say in that copyright that you can not distribute a binary. It does. A binary produced from patched sources is a derivative work. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNTyEDSqK7IlOjMLFAQHl8AP9GQELYT1VM5P67h9x4agZymDMtatdcxl6 PMO4hJ+qH3OeCSdKZFeQxSOCpFvqcQphcFm6Fv7GcBF7MV91QWZLY4+SJt4nG4+G UPfWAIveiEGzODUaawJl2VxvypVyo7iWm994KU+C53acpdsP11EYhWIkz/sHl3t8 jS1wnGsiHh8= =WcXo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PINE Debian Package
I am looking for a debian package of PINE, does any one know where I can get one? thanks Ken -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PINE Debian Package
There should be one in non-free (or maybe contrib?) - anyway, it's there somewhere on the ftp server, I have it installed. Havoc Pennington On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Kenneth F. Ryder III wrote: I am looking for a debian package of PINE, does any one know where I can get one? thanks Ken -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
