| 1 |
On 31-07-2017 04:55:58 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17-07-31 09:11:19, Nicolas Bock wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant |
| 6 |
> > as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt |
| 7 |
> > package. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Thanks, |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Nick |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > -- |
| 14 |
> > Nicolas Bock <nicolasbock@g.o> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It was my understanding that neomutt was mainly mutt with a bunch of |
| 17 |
> patches added on, from what I can see, those patches are already handled |
| 18 |
> by use flags in the mutt package itself. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> https://www.neomutt.org/about.html describes itself as a large set of |
| 21 |
> feature patches and not a fork as well. Are there missing patches that |
| 22 |
> need to be added to the mutt package? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
These days NeoMutt really is a fork, with a complete code-re-indent, |
| 25 |
function name changes, etc.[1] They move fast, deviating from Mutt and |
| 26 |
no longer submit patches to Mutt. It remains to be seen where both |
| 27 |
projects end up, IMO. It is no longer feasible to add features from |
| 28 |
NeoMutt to Mutt, and Mutt moves along its own path (with |
| 29 |
features/improvements) as well. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
For now it seems useful to me to have both mutt and neomutt around. I |
| 32 |
sent my detailed comments on the neomutt ebuild to Nicholas off-list |
| 33 |
already. The changes suggested should show even more how the two are |
| 34 |
different. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Thanks, |
| 37 |
Fabian |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
[1] http://mailman.neomutt.org/pipermail/neomutt-devel-neomutt.org/2017-April/000364.html |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 43 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives