1 |
On czw, 2017-08-10 at 14:16 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 10-08-2017 14:13:29 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: |
3 |
> > * Nicolas Bock schrieb am 10.08.17 um 11:35 Uhr: |
4 |
> > > It does of course. What's appropriate here depends on whether we |
5 |
> > > think somebody might want to have both mutt and neomutt installed |
6 |
> > > at the same time. If we don't allow this use case, we don't have |
7 |
> > > to worry about eselect and the neomutt binary will be called |
8 |
> > > 'mutt' (as it is called by upstream already). If we do allow this |
9 |
> > > use case, being able to eselect makes sense because then the |
10 |
> > > binary is still always called 'mutt'. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Why not just have mutt and/or neomutt for both packages? Whoever only |
13 |
> > wants neomutt and run it with 'mutt' can "alias mutt=neomutt" and be |
14 |
> > done. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Both packages install /usr/bin/mutt by upstream's default (because |
17 |
> neomutt is supposed to be a drop-in replacement of mutt). |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
...which probably makes sense if you treat is as a continuation of mail- |
21 |
client/mutt package. However, since we package it separately, using |
22 |
the same name is going to create more confusion than renaming it to |
23 |
match the package name. |
24 |
|
25 |
If I install 'dev-foo/foobar', I usually expect to find the program name |
26 |
'foobar', not just 'bar'. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Best regards, |
30 |
Michał Górny |