On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:02:51PM -0500, Jeremy Volkening wrote: > > 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. > > I tend to agree with this. I don't know anything about it other than what > has been posted on this thread lately and don't have strong personal > feelings -- I use Debian on all my boxes including my laptop but run neomutt > from Github -- but I can sympathize with the upstream author's point of > view. I think there was a concern that moving the Debian mutt package back > closer to vanilla mutt or else changing the name would impact existing users > too greatly, but honestly it's a much smaller deal than many of the shifts > that have been made in Debian in the past few releases and I think the > suggestions from the previous poster pretty much cover the bases.
The reason why I haven't replied is because I was busy at work, this doesn't mean that I forgot about this issue and it is still my top priority. I will address this in August, I want to make clear that no new "mutt" releases will happen in Debian until we have a solution for this problem. The migration to neomutt under the name "mutt" predates me (it was done in a period while I was not very active as maintainer), but I think a solution that satisfies upstream can be found, just bear with me a couple of days/weeks (within August anyway).
