* 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 

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to