| 1 |
On 10-08-2017 14:13:29 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> * Nicolas Bock schrieb am 10.08.17 um 11:35 Uhr: |
| 3 |
> > It does of course. What's appropriate here depends on whether we |
| 4 |
> > think somebody might want to have both mutt and neomutt installed |
| 5 |
> > at the same time. If we don't allow this use case, we don't have |
| 6 |
> > to worry about eselect and the neomutt binary will be called |
| 7 |
> > 'mutt' (as it is called by upstream already). If we do allow this |
| 8 |
> > use case, being able to eselect makes sense because then the |
| 9 |
> > binary is still always called 'mutt'. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Why not just have mutt and/or neomutt for both packages? Whoever only |
| 12 |
> wants neomutt and run it with 'mutt' can "alias mutt=neomutt" and be |
| 13 |
> done. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Both packages install /usr/bin/mutt by upstream's default (because |
| 16 |
neomutt is supposed to be a drop-in replacement of mutt). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thanks, |
| 19 |
Fabian |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 23 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives