On 07/31/2017 03:52 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 31-07-2017 04:55:58 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> On 17-07-31 09:11:19, Nicolas Bock wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant 
>>> as an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt 
>>> package.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>> -- 
>>> Nicolas Bock <nicolasb...@gentoo.org>
>> It was my understanding that neomutt was mainly mutt with a bunch of
>> patches added on, from what I can see, those patches are already handled
>> by use flags in the mutt package itself.
>> https://www.neomutt.org/about.html describes itself as a large set of
>> feature patches and not a fork as well.  Are there missing patches that
>> need to be added to the mutt package?
> These days NeoMutt really is a fork, with a complete code-re-indent,
> function name changes, etc.[1]  They move fast, deviating from Mutt and
> no longer submit patches to Mutt.  It remains to be seen where both
> projects end up, IMO.  It is no longer feasible to add features from
> NeoMutt to Mutt, and Mutt moves along its own path (with
> features/improvements) as well.
> For now it seems useful to me to have both mutt and neomutt around.  I
> sent my detailed comments on the neomutt ebuild to Nicholas off-list
> already.  The changes suggested should show even more how the two are
> different.
> Thanks,
> Fabian
> [1] 
> http://mailman.neomutt.org/pipermail/neomutt-devel-neomutt.org/2017-April/000364.html
I second Fabians input here. Two packages are necessary.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to