On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:26:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:44:29AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > So please submit your proposal, and I do expect something soon, but > > don't expect my cooperation unless you are willing to ship something > > _much_, _much_ closer to my upstream tarball. > > As an update, I have filed bug 870635 in the Debian bug tracker. > <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=870635>
This whole thing strikes me as very odd. While I haven't used Debian or Ubuntu in a work or personal capacity in quite some time, my first job was a Debian shop, and this whole thing seems very uncharacteristic of the principles of the Debian project. While Debian does often apply a lot of patches to their packages, this seems a bit beyond that. I hope an amicable resolution can be worked out, but I really think that the package should be called 'neomutt', and that the 'mutt' package, if any, should be based on the upstream source, and should more or less expect as people expect "mutt" to work. Or, if they want to standardize on distributing neomutt only, at least have a package redirection where installing "mutt" lists "neomutt" as the replacement. If there's anything "we" (on this list) can do to help support this (i.e., a proposal that can be voted on), please do let us know. w
