Bug#368816: pine: should have another binary package which have no debian patch
--- Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The goal of Debian is to produce the best *free* OS possible, and definitely not to accept silly no-modification license clauses so that we can distribute binaries in non-free. Yes, although in non-free, we can only distribute the non-modified pine binary. The modified binary is not allowed by the license. There are a few reasons why a non-modified pine is not a good idea: *) We would not be able to fix any bugs in it, as we would be unable to modify it at all. My purposed solution is to distribute another non-modified pine as a distinct sub-package name. pine : the modified pine pine-orig : the non-modified pine So, we can still fix bugs in the package named pine, and leave the non-modified binary version in pine-orig for any users who don't want to compile the src themselves. *) It would hide the real pine even more. Heh, what is hidden? It will obviously has two distinct package name. *) The UW already distributes a debian package for pine. The *real* problem here is the license of pine, and for that you should complain to the University of Washington, not to us. The way pine is distributed in the debian ftp servers is not a secret, it's documented in the Debian FAQ. Hmm, sorry for that I haven't tried reading debian FAQ yet. Thank you very much. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#368816: pine: should have another binary package which have no debian patch
Package: pine Version: 4.62-1 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable It should have binary .deb package for the original pine, so that it can be redistributed in debian ftp archive. The package name may be pine-orig, for example. Without binary package, users will don't know that it have pine source package, from debian archive, ready to be built. I try apt-cache search -n pine, and find no package named pine, and thought that it have no any pine package in debian archive. I don't even know that it already have source package. Until yesterday, I try to search for the problem in debian mailing list, and discover that it already have the source package. But that takes time over 1 year, from when I first try to find the pine package from debian. Think of that users spend years to discover the pine package? Many users will lost their opportunity to know that it have pine source package ready for them. That's why I consider this bug as renders package unusable. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-5-386 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=thai Versions of packages pine depends on: ii libc6 2.3.5-1ubuntu12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libldap2 2.1.30-2ubuntu4.1 OpenLDAP libraries ii libncurses55.4-4 Shared libraries for terminal hand ii libssl0.9.70.9.7d-3ubuntu0.2 SSL shared libraries ii mime-support 3.26-1MIME files 'mime.types' 'mailcap -- no debconf information __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
