On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:44:29AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 08:17:02AM +0000, Antonio Radici wrote: > > From your statement above I understand your point clearly, I think a > > solution > > can be found and Debian tooling provides various alternatives, I will > > discuss > > the various options with a couple of people more expert than me on Debian > > packaging and I will come back to you, this can take up to 2 weeks in the > > worst > > case. > > Have you had a chance to do this yet?
Yes, and this is why you haven't seen new releases to the Debian package (despite we had new releases in Neomutt). This is going to be fixed in August, I replied on the bug that you opened. > > Iwould say let's proceed as follow: > > > > * I will investigate the possible options and I will come back to both > > you and > > Richard with one or more proposals for the future of the package in > > Debian. > > > > * I know your views and I will try my best to make sure that they are > > satisfied in the proposals. My understanding is that the original mutt > > targz + extra feature would be OK for you as long as those features are > > cleanly split in patches > > Yes, this would technically satisfy the problem, but... > > > * You let me know whether code formatting changes can be included (in one > > way > > or another), or whether there is a future for inclusion for those > > changes, > > this will greatly reduce the diff between the packages. > > I haven't replied to this, because every time I thought about it, the > answer was "no". So it seemed a better idea to wait and see how things > went. OK no problem, I think it's perfectly OK to say no and it's completely your call :) [...] > Technically, separating out the NeoMutt patches would be satisfactory, > but I would rather you make a decision which project you want to ship, > or ship two packages, not ship a bastardization. I understand your view point and I will address it this month. We can use the bugs on debian.org to track this at this point.
