| 1 |
On 08/10/2017 01:10 AM, 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 |
>> If there is a policy/move to get rid of eselect, then sorry, I am not |
| 36 |
>> aware of that. I can live with a symlink USE-flag. It doesn't seem |
| 37 |
>> very elegant to me, but it would work for this scenario. |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> The move is against orphaned files in /usr that are randomly changed by |
| 41 |
> runtime tools rather than the package manager. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Then how do we explain the reasoning for the other 50 or so eselect |
| 45 |
modules? No doubt at least a handful of them modify symlinks in /usr, |
| 46 |
and have similarly few options to choose from, such as eselect-vi. |
| 47 |
Should we remove those as well? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 51 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 52 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives