1 |
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:10:04AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
>On czw, 2017-08-10 at 09:54 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
3 |
>> On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
>> > On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: |
5 |
>> > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote: |
6 |
>> > > > Hi, |
7 |
>> > > > |
8 |
>> > > > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as |
9 |
>> > > > an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package. |
10 |
>> > > |
11 |
>> > > Thanks for all of the great suggestions and feedback! |
12 |
>> > > |
13 |
>> > > This is round two. I have update the ebuild with all your |
14 |
>> > > suggestions. I have also added support for eselecting between mutt |
15 |
>> > > and neomutt. Before the eselect ebuild can land though, we need to |
16 |
>> > > rename the mutt binary so that the managed link can be called |
17 |
>> > > mutt. |
18 |
>> > |
19 |
>> > What for? How many people are exactly in the dire need of having both |
20 |
>> > installed simultaneously and switching between them? If you really can't |
21 |
>> > learn to type the new command, add IUSE=symlink blocking original mutt |
22 |
>> > and be done with it. Don't add more unowned files to /usr by another |
23 |
>> > poorly written eselect module. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Be nice! No need to be bitchy here (and in the rest of your review). |
26 |
>> Nicolas is just trying. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
>> Me, as maintainer of Mutt, thought it was a good idea, because it allows |
29 |
>> people to easily have both installed at the same time, which in this |
30 |
>> interesting time for both projects is not a weird thing to have. |
31 |
> |
32 |
>I don't see how eselect helps that. People can just run neomutt by |
33 |
>typing... neomutt, right? It works without the symlink, right? |
34 |
|
35 |
It does of course. What's appropriate here depends on whether we |
36 |
think somebody might want to have both mutt and neomutt installed |
37 |
at the same time. If we don't allow this use case, we don't have |
38 |
to worry about eselect and the neomutt binary will be called |
39 |
'mutt' (as it is called by upstream already). If we do allow this |
40 |
use case, being able to eselect makes sense because then the |
41 |
binary is still always called 'mutt'. |
42 |
|
43 |
>> If there is a policy/move to get rid of eselect, then sorry, I am not |
44 |
>> aware of that. I can live with a symlink USE-flag. It doesn't seem |
45 |
>> very elegant to me, but it would work for this scenario. |
46 |
>> |
47 |
> |
48 |
>The move is against orphaned files in /usr that are randomly changed by |
49 |
>runtime tools rather than the package manager. |
50 |
|
51 |
I don't quite understand the problem. Doesn't the package manager |
52 |
take care of symlinks installed by the eselect package? |
53 |
|
54 |
>-- |
55 |
>Best regards, |
56 |
>Michał Górny |
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
-- |
61 |
Nicolas Bock <nicolasbock@g.o> |