I hadn't really meant to make this a mutt-users topic, but.... On 2002.03.07, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Simon White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In an ideal world: > > $ ./configure --enable-liability --disable-benefit
Perhaps. So why doesn't mutt include every patch available as a configure option? (I don't know on a point-by-point basis, but I know that there are good reasons for some exclusions. Some changes in functionality are too fundamental to keep a sane code base, or so basic that they require constant maintenance, and the maintainer isn't equipped to perform that.) > > Besides, speaking just for myself: I write software for fun, not because > > the abstract "open source community" needs it. All the better if they > > do, but that's often not key. > > Fair point, but the open source community has to also work on stuff which > is useful, cf. the GNU project et al Sure. I only mean to say that it's not fair to put down reduplication of effort without addressing specifics. -- -D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] NSIT University of Chicago
