new release of Pine

[Charles Wilson]

Eduardo Chappa wrote:

> *** Charles Wilson (cwilson@ece.gatech.edu) wrote today:
> 
> :) A few important points:
> :)    1) Yes, Eduardo Chappa IS the official cygwin maintainer of pine --
> :) At least, he was the guy who announce pine on cygwin-announce:
> :)    http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2002-04/msg00008.html
> :)
> :)
> :)    2) /usr/doc/Cygwin/pine*.README doesn't say that Eduardo is the
> :) maintainer.
> :)
> :)    3) it should.
> 
> Thanks Charles for your comments. I decided not to write my name in the
> readme file for personal reasons, it was a concious decision, and I see no
> reason to add it. Several packages do not have it included in their
> readme files, so I hope that you are not just being picky with my package
> or me.


No, it's just this: since I didn't recall your name, I wondered if 
someone was "hijacking" the package.  I vaguely remember somebody rather 
petulantly asking for LDAP support, and was given a "when the maintainer 
is ready" brushoff (I may be misremembering here -- I'm just explaining 
what was going on in *my* head).

So, then up pops some guy named "Eduardo" with an LDAP pine update.

Hmmm....

A quick check in /usr/doc/Cygwin/pine*.README to see if this "Eduardo" 
guy is the actual maintainer, or the petulant guy trying to pull a fast 
one...

Hmmm.... maintainer not listed...

Okay, now I'm REALLY curious.  Go to the cygwin-announce archives, and 
see who posted the announcement.

June? no...
May? no...
April?  AHA! Yep, Eduardo is the maintainer

Basically, an unecessary PITA -- because your name wasn't in the README. 
  And all I was doing was trying to ensure that the "real" maintainer's 
interests weren't slighted.


> I read e-mail in both the cygwin and cygwin-apps lists and am aware of any
> requests, bug reports, people have sent, so I see no reason why people
> need to know who is in charge of maintaining it, when sending e-mail to
> the list works just fine.


Well, I guess cgf keeps a list somewhere of who maintains what...


> This is certainly not a policy listed in the page that describes how to
> make a package for cygwin, so I would like, as others have been in the
> past, be excused to add that line, and would appreciate if others did not
> add it for me.


Nobody is going to touch your package(s).  In fact, it was precisely to 
insure that the pine package was NOT messed with without the official 
maintainer's (your) approval, that led to my message in the first place!


> Would it be possible that someone uploaded this new version?, if not, just
> let me know. People will be using the first version, and that's fine with
> me too.


I can't do it (easily) -- I'm on a modem these days. :-(   Sorry.


--Chuck