On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Rafael Kitover wrote: > While the pine license is evil, true. I have a suggestion for the way pine > packages are currently made. The process of installing pine currently is, > > apt-get install pine396-src > apt-get install pine396-diffs > cd /usr/src/pine > read the README > dpkg-source -x pine*dsc > cd pine*;debian/rules binary > see warning, press enter, watch it build > cd ..;dpkg -i *.deb
No, this is the process of *compiling* pine. The process of installing pine is just dpkg -i pine.deb And for this reason pine.deb should continue to be the packahe it is. > Now, why not have a package just called "pine" that would: > > pre-depend on devscripts, a c compiler, and whatever else is necessary to > build pine. And of course on the pine packages themselves. Suggest > pine-docs. With the end result of all this being that a user could type > > apt-get install pine I have no objection to such package, as long as it is not named "pine". But someone else would have to be the maintainer, I don't want to maintain a tricky package like that. Thanks. -- "48c9f95505857e6e32052d787494621d" (a truly random sig)