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. 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 > >  > http://mailman.neomutt.org/pipermail/neomutt-devel-neomutt.org/2017-April/000364.html > I second Fabians input here. Two packages are necessary.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature