On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 10:51 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Fri, 2019-05-03 at 08:43 -0300, Francisco M Neto wrote: > > AFAIK in Stretch Mutt actually means Neomutt. There was a flamewar between > > the > > package maintainer and the Mutt guy a while ago about that. It wasn't > > pretty[1,2]. > > > > > > In Buster, Mutt means Mutt, and Neomutt means Neomutt. > > Is there a formal policy or plan for how issues like this are handled in > the future *before* flamewars begin? There was a similar issue with > mailx (bsd-mailx, heirloom-mailx, s-nail) where decisions were made by > one group and offences were taken by others. It just seems like a clear > policy could prevent a lot of these "name takeover" issues. I'm not sure about what happened to mailx, but with Mutt it was a bad decision made by the package maintainer years ago when applying the Neomutt patch became too cumbersome; it was not foreseen in Debian Policy, so I don't think there is any provision for it in it. That's probably why it ended up in a flame like that. -- []'s, Francisco M Neto GPG: 4096R/D692FBF0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part