| 1 |
On 07/31/2017 03:52 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 31-07-2017 04:55:58 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 17-07-31 09:11:19, Nicolas Bock wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Hi, |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant |
| 7 |
>>> as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt |
| 8 |
>>> package. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> Thanks, |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Nick |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> -- |
| 15 |
>>> Nicolas Bock <nicolasbock@g.o> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> It was my understanding that neomutt was mainly mutt with a bunch of |
| 18 |
>> patches added on, from what I can see, those patches are already handled |
| 19 |
>> by use flags in the mutt package itself. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> https://www.neomutt.org/about.html describes itself as a large set of |
| 22 |
>> feature patches and not a fork as well. Are there missing patches that |
| 23 |
>> need to be added to the mutt package? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> These days NeoMutt really is a fork, with a complete code-re-indent, |
| 26 |
> function name changes, etc.[1] They move fast, deviating from Mutt and |
| 27 |
> no longer submit patches to Mutt. It remains to be seen where both |
| 28 |
> projects end up, IMO. It is no longer feasible to add features from |
| 29 |
> NeoMutt to Mutt, and Mutt moves along its own path (with |
| 30 |
> features/improvements) as well. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> For now it seems useful to me to have both mutt and neomutt around. I |
| 33 |
> sent my detailed comments on the neomutt ebuild to Nicholas off-list |
| 34 |
> already. The changes suggested should show even more how the two are |
| 35 |
> different. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Thanks, |
| 38 |
> Fabian |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> [1] http://mailman.neomutt.org/pipermail/neomutt-devel-neomutt.org/2017-April/000364.html |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
I second Fabians input here. Two packages are necessary. |
Archives