Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
PLF stands for Penguin Liberation Front. Their URL is: http://plf.zarb.org/ The site provides RPM's that can't be included in the Distro for various legal reasons. A list of mirrors is at the site. They can be added as a source in URPMI/Rpmdrake. I simply include them as a bookmark in gftp and synchronize with my local PLF directory then freshen it up to date when I update my cooker install. There is also a brand new PLF ISO that has just been released. I find PLF INVALUABLE in keeping my distro cutting edge and up to date with all the features and functionality I like in my desktop. Things like MP3 encoders are there etc. Pine too ;) Hope this helps. Cheers Jason Greenwood PS, join their mailing lists if you want to stay up to date with their goings on. Felix Miata wrote: Levi Ramsey wrote: On Fri Oct 11 20:24 +0100, Biagio Lucini wrote: Guys, don't flame at me for what I am going to say: in the jump from 8.2 to 9.0 I am missing pine. I am already re-using it, since I have ported the source rpm from RH 8.0. Just a little tweaking and it will be ready for general use. The question is: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? Pine RPMs for Mandrake 9 are in PLF. Until UW changes their licensing terms, pine will live in PLF forever. What/where is PLF?
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
021013 Ron Stodden Philip Webb discussed: PW 9.0 includes Joe, which offers 'jpico', a more powerful version of Pico. RS Not so. Here's an expert, install everything: RS [ron@small ron]$ joe RS bash: joe: command not found PW here's my CD2 for 9.0rc1 : PW -r--r--r-- 5 root root 146979 Aug 13 16:15 joe-2.9.7-6mdk.i586.rpm PW unfortunately, when the Mandrake installer installs everything, PW it doesn't necessarily install everything (smile). RS I know joe is post-installable RS AFAIK the only command line text editor installed is emacs . RS X is a problem to many people and having only emacs, RS which is overkill, is simply not good enough. yes, my standard editor is Gvim, but Joe is useful for little tasks: it also allows emulation of the similar Borland Turbo editor; and jpico has a lot more than simple Pico, eg an undo function. Mandrake folx: shouldn't Joe be installed under 'Office' 'Development'? -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
021011 Forest C. Adcock wrote: I was a pico user, and when I upgraded via fresh install, there was no pine avaliable. 9.0 includes Joe, which offers 'jpico', a more powerful version of Pico. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban Community Studies TRANSIT`-O--O---' University of Toronto
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
Isn't nano available with Mandrake 9? It's a GPL'd clone of pico. I have seen it in Texstar's repository, which let me think that it is not in contrib... I thought the problem was that pine (the mail program) had been removed rather than pico (the editor)...
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 16:23, Biagio Lucini wrote: Right. But Debian has as far as I know a non-free tree. Why this solution can't be implemented in Mandrake? Biagio Debian doesn't include pine in it's non-free software tree. I believe there used to be a pine-src package which provided a way to build one's own .deb for pine, but that's been removed.
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 04:10:26PM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: I thought the problem was that pine (the mail program) had been removed rather than pico (the editor)... pico is an editor that is part of the pine package and licensed with the same license. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Never take no as an answer from someone who isn't authorized to say yes.
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
Ben Reser wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 04:10:26PM +0100, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: I thought the problem was that pine (the mail program) had been removed rather than pico (the editor)... pico is an editor that is part of the pine package and licensed with the same license. And just to repeat what was already said, GNU nano is a pico clone. All of the key combinations that you are used to in pico should work in nano. Plus, there are a few additional features like 'Search and Replace' in nano which I don't think pico has. Also, in pico you need to explictly turn on the useful options via the command-line. Why they have you do this I don't know. Again, they are probably afraid of their users, which is the same excuse we hear as to why they don't allow patched binaries. -- Sincerely, David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg79847/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On 12 Oct 2002, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: Isn't nano available with Mandrake 9? It's a GPL'd clone of pico. I have seen it in Texstar's repository, which let me think that it is not in contrib... I thought the problem was that pine (the mail program) had been removed rather than pico (the editor)... Actually, the problem is that pico is part of pine, and pine sers often don't mind using pico for quick editing tasks. Biagio
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:24:13 +0100 (BST) Biagio Lucini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? Correct it can not go in contrib. Also it is already available for mandrake in PLF. Charles --- When the blind lead the blind they will both fall over the cliff. -- Chinese proverb -- Charles A Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
I feel your pain. I was a pico user, and when I upgraded via fresh install, there was no pine avaliable. I was not aware that it wasn't GPLed, but I'm sure that that was the reason it was removed from the distro. On Friday 11 October 2002 02:24 pm, Biagio Lucini wrote: Guys, don't flame at me for what I am going to say: in the jump from 8.2 to 9.0 I am missing pine. I am already re-using it, since I have ported the source rpm from RH 8.0. Just a little tweaking and it will be ready for general use. The question is: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? Biagio
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
Biagio Lucini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The question is: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? no you can't. The pb is that it's not free software: not DFSG-compliant, and not even Open Source [*] We do accept non-GPLed software (eg: LGPL, BSD...) ;pp [*] squeak is an example of Open Source software not DFSG-compliant
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
Isn't nano available with Mandrake 9? It's a GPL'd clone of pico.
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Charles A Edwards wrote: On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:24:13 +0100 (BST) Biagio Lucini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? Also it is already available for mandrake in PLF. I did not realise that you can find software like pine in PLF. I thought it was just a site where you can find software that might not completely compliant with the legislation of some country. Thanks for the comunication. It has been fun anyway to learn how to mandake-ize an rpm. Biagio
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On 11 Oct 2002, Pixel wrote: Biagio Lucini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The question is: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? no you can't. The pb is that it's not free software: not DFSG-compliant, and not even Open Source [*] We do accept non-GPLed software (eg: LGPL, BSD...) ;pp [*] squeak is an example of Open Source software not DFSG-compliant Right. But Debian has as far as I know a non-free tree. Why this solution can't be implemented in Mandrake? Biagio
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Fri Oct 11 20:24 +0100, Biagio Lucini wrote: Guys, don't flame at me for what I am going to say: in the jump from 8.2 to 9.0 I am missing pine. I am already re-using it, since I have ported the source rpm from RH 8.0. Just a little tweaking and it will be ready for general use. The question is: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? Pine RPMs for Mandrake 9 are in PLF. Until UW changes their licensing terms, pine will live in PLF forever. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Love lies in pools of questions. GPG Key Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Led Zeppelin - You SHook Me Linux 2.4.19-16mdk 4:30pm up 8 days, 14:55, 10 users, load average: 0.41, 0.36, 0.27
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Guy McArthur wrote: Isn't nano available with Mandrake 9? It's a GPL'd clone of pico. I have seen it in Texstar's repository, which let me think that it is not in contrib... Biagio
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Fri Oct 11 21:23 +0100, Biagio Lucini wrote: Right. But Debian has as far as I know a non-free tree. Why this solution can't be implemented in Mandrake? Depending on the case, that's either PLF or MandrakeClub. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Love lies in pools of questions. GPG Key Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Led Zeppelin - You SHook Me Linux 2.4.19-16mdk 4:30pm up 8 days, 14:55, 10 users, load average: 0.41, 0.36, 0.27
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
Le Vendredi 11 Octobre 2002 19:24, Biagio Lucini a écrit : Guys, don't flame at me for what I am going to say: in the jump from 8.2 to 9.0 I am missing pine. I am already re-using it, since I have ported the source rpm from RH 8.0. Just a little tweaking and it will be ready for general use. The question is: can I upload it to contrib or the fact that it is not GPL software clashes with the new 100% free policy of Mandrake? Biagio Well, lot of poeple have answered before and not a lot things to add. Pine is free software but with a very strange license, it is possible to distribute source, source with patch, patch or binary, but not a patched binary. Then it is not enough free to be integrated in Mandrake. RedHat have agreement to use it in distro. I asked there some month, I am still waiting a response. Actually it is in plf: [nanardonvirgo plf]$ find -name pine* ./9.0/i586/pine-4.44-4plf.i586.rpm ./src/pine-4.44-4plf.src.rpm ./cooker/ppc/pine-4.44-4plf.ppc.rpm ./cooker/i586/pine-4.44-4plf.i586.rpm If you have patch, or fix, send me... I package it because I need it at work. -- Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 11:48:49PM +, Olivier Thauvin wrote: Well, lot of poeple have answered before and not a lot things to add. Pine is free software but with a very strange license, it is possible to distribute source, source with patch, patch or binary, but not a patched binary. Then it is not enough free to be integrated in Mandrake. Oliver, pine is *NOT* free softare. From the Free Software Definition on the GNU website: The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Never take no as an answer from someone who isn't authorized to say yes.
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
Le Vendredi 11 Octobre 2002 23:15, Ben Reser a écrit : On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 11:48:49PM +, Olivier Thauvin wrote: Well, lot of poeple have answered before and not a lot things to add. Pine is free software but with a very strange license, it is possible to distribute source, source with patch, patch or binary, but not a patched binary. Then it is not enough free to be integrated in Mandrake. Oliver, pine is *NOT* free softare. From the Free Software Definition on the GNU website: The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html I agree, maybe my explanation was wrong, strongly pine devellopers want to keep the source free, but they deny to redistribute binary. As I remember, they encourage to make patch, but not want to see binary with patch. In fact I do not understand their policy exactly. Well, finaly, it can't be include in Mandrake tree ! That point is sure :( -- Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
Re: [Cooker] Missing pine
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 02:41:32AM +, Olivier Thauvin wrote: I agree, maybe my explanation was wrong, strongly pine devellopers want to keep the source free, but they deny to redistribute binary. As I remember, they encourage to make patch, but not want to see binary with patch. It's free as in price. But it's not free as in freedom or libre. Unfortunately, English uses the same word for the two entirely different concepts. At least in this community the term free software should always be used in reference the the freedom/libre meaning not the price meaning. FSF refers to the rest as freely downloadable software. Which of course probably doesn't help with the confusion. *sigh* In fact I do not understand their policy exactly. Well, finaly, it can't be include in Mandrake tree ! That point is sure :( Well I live near UW and have asked people that work there that know people reponsible for it. The argument comes down to not wanting to support patched versions. They claim they will get support requests for patched versions where the patches are causing problems and will have no way of knowing the patch is even there. Pretty much a similar argument to djb and Theo's feelings about people messing with their software. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Never take no as an answer from someone who isn't authorized to say yes.
