On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Jordi Mallach wrote: > Regarding the binary name, I think it shouldn't be renamed. I don't know > what you mean with "the fact that it's part of the alpine source package > is irrelevant". There is a source package in Debian which builds a > "pine" package (not by default, due to licensing reasons). If you rename > alpine-pico to pico, there'll be two different "pico" binaries with > different version numbers and source, even if the "real" one isn't in > the binary archive.
Hello Jordi. I don't understand the exact meaning of this last paragraph. The pico package was dropped from the pine source package a long time ago, so we can consider it completely deprecated by now, and I doubt a lot of people have it installed, considering that nano is much better than the old pico. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
