| 1 |
On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Hi, |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as |
| 7 |
> > > an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Thanks for all of the great suggestions and feedback! |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > This is round two. I have update the ebuild with all your |
| 12 |
> > suggestions. I have also added support for eselecting between mutt |
| 13 |
> > and neomutt. Before the eselect ebuild can land though, we need to |
| 14 |
> > rename the mutt binary so that the managed link can be called |
| 15 |
> > mutt. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What for? How many people are exactly in the dire need of having both |
| 18 |
> installed simultaneously and switching between them? If you really can't |
| 19 |
> learn to type the new command, add IUSE=symlink blocking original mutt |
| 20 |
> and be done with it. Don't add more unowned files to /usr by another |
| 21 |
> poorly written eselect module. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Be nice! No need to be bitchy here (and in the rest of your review). |
| 24 |
Nicolas is just trying. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Me, as maintainer of Mutt, thought it was a good idea, because it allows |
| 27 |
people to easily have both installed at the same time, which in this |
| 28 |
interesting time for both projects is not a weird thing to have. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If there is a policy/move to get rid of eselect, then sorry, I am not |
| 31 |
aware of that. I can live with a symlink USE-flag. It doesn't seem |
| 32 |
very elegant to me, but it would work for this scenario. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Fabian |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 40 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives