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