| 1 |
* Nicolas Bock schrieb am 10.08.17 um 11:35 Uhr: |
| 2 |
> It does of course. What's appropriate here depends on whether we |
| 3 |
> think somebody might want to have both mutt and neomutt installed |
| 4 |
> at the same time. If we don't allow this use case, we don't have |
| 5 |
> to worry about eselect and the neomutt binary will be called |
| 6 |
> 'mutt' (as it is called by upstream already). If we do allow this |
| 7 |
> use case, being able to eselect makes sense because then the |
| 8 |
> binary is still always called 'mutt'. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Why not just have mutt and/or neomutt for both packages? Whoever only |
| 11 |
wants neomutt and run it with 'mutt' can "alias mutt=neomutt" and be |
| 12 |
done. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Having en eselect module here is not really KISS and looks a bit like |
| 15 |
bloat to me which make things more complicated than they have to be. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Just my 2ยข |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
0xCA3E7BF67F979BE5 - F7FB 78F7 7CC3 79F6 DF07 |
| 21 |
6E9E CA3E 7BF6 7F97 9BE5 |
Archives