On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:19:33PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > * Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> [2016-06-24 09:24 +0100]: > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:10:50PM +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > > > > > > > I've packaged neomutt for Debian. A Debian ITP [2] is filed. > > > > [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825821 > > > > > > For those on -devel not up to speed on what is going on (such as me) the > > > ITP makes interesting reading. > > > > > > The existing mutt maintainers have a considered plan to move to neomutt > > > for the existing mutt packages (at least mutt-patched and quite likely > > > mutt itself). > > > > This I am not aware of. I never noticed such a consideration. AFAIK > > mutt maintainers are in contact to neomutt upstream, but thats it. > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20160530191157.GA21264@nana.phantasia.die-welt.net with a CC to the ITP bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825821#55 it says, among other: | The current plan is to replace Debian's mutt-patched patchset with neomutt. [1] | Maybe even s/mutt/neomutt/ at some point. | | [1] https://github.com/neomutt/neomutt/issues/23 Elimar, Where you have the skill to package software, please show the world that you have the skill to work together with people. pkg-mutt, There is a new kid on the block. Where I think that his entrance could/should have been better, I still ask for a way to get along. Groeten Geert Stappers Who personally thinks that Elimar is to egar to have his own package in Debian. Yes, I could be wrong about that. So please prove me wrong. Other things to avoid a fight over who packaged what, is also preferred. -- Leven en laten leven
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature