* Jonathan Dowland <j...@debian.org> [2016-06-24 09:24 +0100]:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:10:50PM +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> > I am pleased to announce the availability of neomutt [0] packages for
> > Debian. Hints for installation you'll find at [1].
> snip
> >
> > I've packaged neomutt for Debian. A Debian ITP [2] is filed.
> > [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825821
>
> For those on -devel not up to speed on what is going on (such as me) the
> ITP makes interesting reading.
>
> The existing mutt maintainers have a considered plan to move to neomutt
> for the existing mutt packages (at least mutt-patched and quite likely
> mutt itself).
This I am not aware of. I never noticed such a consideration. AFAIK
mutt maintainers are in contact to neomutt upstream, but thats it.
> Rather than work with the existing team Elimar has persisted with
> efforts to package neomutt separately and has even suggested a *different*
> team is set up to maintain neomutt, versus pkg-mutt.
From my point of view we need the "legacy mutt" in Debian as well as
the neomutt. My package replaces mutt and therefor mutt-patched and
mutt-kz as well. To join the Debian distro there should be a replace
of neomutt in the mutt-package. At the moment Debian neomutt uses
mutt as the binary name.
> A fork by any other name smells just as sweet.
Well, neomutt isn't a fork really. It is an incredible complement
of mutt gathered by Richard Russon!
Elimar
--
.~.
/V\ L I N U X
/( )\ >Phear the Penguin<
^^-^^
