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