Re: taking over elm-me+
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: taking over elm-me+
- From: David Weinehall <david@southpole.se>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:49:34 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040209214934.GY5776@khan.acc.umu.se>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <87k73eyu72.fsf@yiwaz.raw.no>
- References: <20020409144805.8162375837@erwin.complete.org> <20020726115808.GA14949@kalypso.debian.net> <20040125174835.GA4531@deprecation.cyrius.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401251639200.1214@diku.intranet.braincell.com> <20040126144815.GA25130@moregruel.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401261632210.1401@diku.intranet.braincell.com> <20040126221244.GA17858@deprecation.cyrius.com> <87k73eyu72.fsf@yiwaz.raw.no>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:57:37AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Martin Michlmayr
>
> | To be honest, after reading this thread, I'm leaning towards just
> | removing elm-me+. If your wife really wants to continue using it, you
> | can just keep the old .deb around. I switched to Mutt in 1996, so I
> | didn't follow elm-me*, but I thought it had been dead for quite a
> | while, so keeping it in Debian probably doesn't make much sense.
>
> elm-me+ has /usr/bin/frm, though; is there some replacement for that
> functionality?
The next release of lsmbox will likely contain frm functionality.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Reply to: