On Fr, 30 Jun 2017, Antonio Radici wrote: > mutt source code as you release it? It was never like this even before 1.6.*, > when we had extra patches on the top of mutt, what should I do with > patches/features which are (and were) expected on the top of mutt?
That's what the mutt-patched package was for, IIRC. But there was always the plain normal mutt package, if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, the mutt-patched package now seems gone, otherwise, you could make a virtual package mutt-patched that depends on the neomutt package and which conflicts on the mutt package. However in the long run, it would be better, if the neomutt package provided its own binary and not call it mutt. regards, Christian
