| 1 |
Masked mail-client/muttng pending removal, unless someone steps up/takes |
| 2 |
over. Removal after 30 days. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On 26-05-2007 10:52:07 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 6 |
> Hi all, |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> mail-client/muttng currently sits in the tree as some sort of orphan. |
| 9 |
> It used to be a fork of Mutt, having many patches applied, features |
| 10 |
> added and code cleaned up. However, at a certain point the project |
| 11 |
> died, one of the main developers went back to Mutt and applied his |
| 12 |
> patches there. Currently most of these patches are applied in Mutt's |
| 13 |
> sources, or patches have been made to work with Mutt. Some have even |
| 14 |
> improved a lot (e.g. SMTP support is native in Mutt, while it uses |
| 15 |
> libesmtp in muttng). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Current state of muttng is a bit vague. It tries to be a collection of |
| 18 |
> patches against the latest development version of Mutt. However, since |
| 19 |
> the latest svn release of muttng, I have never updated the package, as I |
| 20 |
> don't really know what can or should be released from it. The result is |
| 21 |
> IMO bitrot, and bugs/security holes are not fixed. Additionally, Mutt |
| 22 |
> seems to have superceeded muttng by now. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> For this reason I would like to drop muttng from the tree (in a normal |
| 25 |
> procedure, of course). I know at least one Gentoo (Security) dev seems |
| 26 |
> to use muttng instead of mutt currently. If someone knows how life for |
| 27 |
> muttng should continue, feel free to take over the package. If you are |
| 28 |
> using muttng now, consider moving to the latest Mutt. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Please speak up now if there are major reasons to keep muttng in the |
| 31 |
> tree, despite being unmaintained and out of date. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 36 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives