[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Neomutt packages available

Clint Adams writes ("Re: Neomutt packages available"):
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:24:27AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > 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.
> Good.
> > A fork by any other name smells just as sweet.
> Territorial bullshit.

Well, part of this is a dispute about names.

I don't think we would be serving our users by offering neomutt in two
packages, one of which is called `neomutt' and the other is called

The existing src:mutt team intend to switch to neomutt as upstream.  I
assume that this decision was written down somewhere (probably in the
pkg-mutt list).  I think pkg-mutt have the better claim to the binary
package name `neomutt'.  Even if they choose to leave it fallow.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a competing package.
But the insurgent maintainer should pick a name which isn't a
namespace grab, and doesn't make misleading implications about other
binary packages.

Also, we do have to recognise that competing in this way can be
perceived as hostile.  I don't know the full history of Elimar's
communications with pkg-mutt but by now relations are soured.  Luckily
there is no particular reason why we need to force pkg-mutt and Elimar
to work closely together.


Reply to: