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 installer packae that says "please have orig,patch.dsc in /usr/src", just like the netscape installer says "please have netscape.tgz in $TMPDIR", and give explanations, or even automations, on how to get it there. Well, that is my suggestion, and I am fairly confident that there should be a way to slip it or something like it past UW's license.
On a side issue, doesn't anyone use elm? Are there reasons why it is all "mutt vs. pine"? On a freshly installed system that I have not downloaded pine onto, I usually use elm. I can't see any disadvantages of elm, at least on the surface, and it seems a little more extensible than pine (no doubt due to licensing :) I am considering whether I should just switch to it so I can stop supporting retentives like UW. (The observant will notice I am writing this in pine :) -Greg Mildenhall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
