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.
-
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
s
On Sun, 19
n Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: UserList Debian
> 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:
>
>
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 p
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
>> 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 P
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 ar
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 installe
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
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?
> >
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
>
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.
>
>
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
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
g
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 M
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
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. P
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
> >
> "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
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
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
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 doin
> 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.
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 convenie
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
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 app
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
> > simple
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 t
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 e
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
> en
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
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
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
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 c
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 il
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 distribut
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
Geor
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
> 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 cons
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?
> >
> > T
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 (
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.
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
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 moun
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
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 so
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 t
-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, bu
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
> 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]
-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*.
> >
> >
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
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
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 confirme
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 r
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
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 frequ
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'
>
> 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
> >
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. Mayb
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
> 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.
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 s
> > 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 shal
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
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,
>
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jason Costomiris wrote:
> 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 re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jason Costomiris wrote:
> : 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
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 muc
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 p
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 l
-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 applie
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
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 inst
> "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 d
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 pin
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
>
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]
79 matches
Mail list logo
