On czw, 2017-08-10 at 14:16 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 10-08-2017 14:13:29 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> > * 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.
> Both packages install /usr/bin/mutt by upstream's default (because
> neomutt is supposed to be a drop-in replacement of mutt).

...which probably makes sense if you treat is as a continuation of mail-
client/mutt package. However, since we package it separately, using
the same name is going to create more confusion than renaming it to
match the package name.

If I install 'dev-foo/foobar', I usually expect to find the program name
'foobar', not just 'bar'.

Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to