I think a new port is fine, as long as the upgrade path works (conflict/pkgpath markers etc).
William Yodlowsky <[email protected]> wrote: >As mentioned recently on tech@ [*], mail/nail is not in good shape; I >have an update that should help. > >I've spent a fair amount of time in folders with 9k - 26k messages in >them via IMAP and it is just fine. Takes awhile to start, but the >cache >helps if you enable it and successive attempts are faster. > >I have a diff to switch mail/nail over to being the s-nail fork, but >I think it may be time for this to be a new port: mail/s-nail. > >mail/nail changed names in the past (first 'nail', then 'heirloom >mailx') and we just tweaked things to keep working the same way, as >it was the same code, by the same author... but this one is a fork. > >So I have for your selection: > >- a diff that replaces heirloom for s-nail-14.2, keeping everything >packaging the same as it does now > >or > >- a tarball of a new mail/s-nail port, whose import should IMO should >follow mail/nail's trip to the Attic > >Which would be preferred? > >I'll take MAINTAINER back again either way. > >Thanks. > >[*] - http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=136416603330480&w=2
