Your message dated Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:31:52 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#334171: mutt-ng: perhaps use alternatives with mutt?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Oct 2005 01:30:51 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 15 18:30:50 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtpout1.uol.com.br (smtp.uol.com.br) [200.221.4.192]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EQxMQ-0003q9-00; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:30:50 -0700
Received: from dumont.rtb.ath.cx (unknown [200.221.104.251])
by scorpion1.uol.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C2186F0
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:30:17 -0300 (BRT)
Received: (qmail 4185 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Oct 2005 01:30:16 -0000
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:30:16 -0300
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rog=E9rio?= Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mutt-ng: perhaps use alternatives with mutt?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 3.17
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: mutt-ng
Version: 0.0+20050916-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi there.
I am right now playing with mutt-ng directly taken from experimental and
it does seem more sensible (at least with the naming of the variables)
than mutt.
I would, therefore, like to use it in preference of mutt, even if I have
mutt installed. Unfortunately, some programs already use mutt as a
hardcoded value (for instance, this very same bugreport tool that I am
using right now, when invoked with the -M option).
So, would it be possible to provide a way (say, via alternatives) so
that the system administrator could choose which version to give
preference?
I think that using alternatives would be quite painless to implement and
I can send a patch if desired.
Oh, BTW, it seems to be mature enough to warrant a first upload to
unstable (so that it can move to testing, where more people would use
it).
Thanks for packaging muttng, Rog=E9rio Brito.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (900, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-rc4-1
Locale: LANG=3DC, LC_CTYPE=3Dpt_BR (charmap=3DISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages mutt-ng depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.5-6 GNU C Library: Shared librar=
ies an
ii libgnutls11 1.0.16-13.1 GNU TLS library - runtime li=
brary
ii libidn11 0.5.18-1 GNU libidn library, implemen=
tation
ii libncursesw5 5.4-9 Shared libraries for termina=
l hand
ii libqdbm11 1.8.30-1 QDBM Database Libraries [run=
time]
ii libsasl2 2.1.19-1.5 Authentication abstraction l=
ibrary
ii qmail [mail-transport-agent] 1.03-9 DJB's qmail
mutt-ng recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 334171-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Oct 2005 09:32:05 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 16 02:32:05 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from h01.hostsharing.net (pima.hostsharing.net) [212.42.230.152]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1ER4s9-00007S-00; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:32:05 -0700
Received: from mail.home.lxtec.de (p549EE7F1.dip.t-dialin.net [84.158.231.241])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pima.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 3C6EAB64BC; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:32:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1])
by mail.home.lxtec.de with esmtp (Exim 4.54 1 (LXTEC))
id 1ER4s5-0006mB-J6; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:32:01 +0200
Received: from mail.home.lxtec.de ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.home.lxtec.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 25620-06; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:31:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from aragorn.home.lxtec.de ([192.168.200.203])
by mail.home.lxtec.de with esmtps (Exim 4.54 1 (LXTEC))
id 1ER4s2-0006m3-CN; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:31:58 +0200
Received: from riesebie by aragorn.home.lxtec.de with local (Exim 4.54)
id 1ER4rw-0001dk-1f; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:31:52 +0200
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:31:52 +0200
From: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Rog=E9rio?= Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#334171: mutt-ng: perhaps use alternatives with mutt?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wac7ysb48OaltWcw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: LXTEC
X-gnupg-key-fingerprint: BE65 85E4 4867 7E9B 1F2A B2CE DC88 3C6E C54F 7FB0
User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r551 (Debian-PPC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (DEBIAN) at mail.home.lxtec.de
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2
--wac7ysb48OaltWcw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 the mental interface of
Rog=E9rio Brito told:
> Package: mutt-ng
> Version: 0.0+20050916-1
> Severity: wishlist
>=20
> Hi there.
>=20
> I am right now playing with mutt-ng directly taken from experimental and
> it does seem more sensible (at least with the naming of the variables)
> than mutt.
>=20
> I would, therefore, like to use it in preference of mutt, even if I have
> mutt installed. Unfortunately, some programs already use mutt as a
> hardcoded value (for instance, this very same bugreport tool that I am
> using right now, when invoked with the -M option).
echo "mua 'muttng -H'" >> ~/.reportbugrc
> So, would it be possible to provide a way (say, via alternatives) so
> that the system administrator could choose which version to give
> preference?
No, mutt-ng is bleeding edge and isn't an altrnative yet.
> I think that using alternatives would be quite painless to implement and
> I can send a patch if desired.
>=20
> Oh, BTW, it seems to be mature enough to warrant a first upload to
> unstable (so that it can move to testing, where more people would use
> it).
No, mutt-ng is bleeding edge and isn't stable enough yet.
> Thanks for packaging muttng, Rog=E9rio Brito.
Thanks for reporting
Elimar
--=20
.~.
/V\ L I N U X
/( )\ >Phear the Penguin<
^^-^^
--wac7ysb48OaltWcw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDUh4H3Ig8bsVPf7ARAq2MAJ9F85MlZpqyDTFqKNFhc/FSbFrsdACgnWt/
QXg+c8vSgS8YbRndX0q925Y=
=7u/5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--wac7ysb48OaltWcw--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
