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

Bug#877388: RFA: s-nail -- feature-rich BSD mail(1)


Hilko Bengen <bengen@debian.org> wrote:
 |Package: wnpp
 |Severity: normal

First: thanks for updating this once again, Hilko!

 |s-nail, previously known as heirloom-mailx and nail, is the classic
 |/bin/mail program, with many modern features added. (Unfortunately it is
 |not suitable as a "mailx" because incompatible differences in command
 |line options with bsd-mailx, see #846062.)

I (still) disagree with the latter one.
It is compatible to POSIX mailx(1), and BSD Mail, it diverges from
Debian patches of bsd-mailx which have been added after Heirloom
mailx (then nail) introduced the command line flag in question.
That caused an issue in a (n imho bad) script sixteen years later.
The v14.9.* series which are landing in Debian now support custom
headers, too.

 |If I remember correctly, it was the first package I adopted after
 |joining Debian as a DD in 2003. After about 14 years and two project
 |forks/renames, I would like to see someone else take over package

I am sorry for this.

 |I feel that s-nail is suitable package for people with little packaging
 |experience to adopt. The current upstream author, Steffen Nurpmeso is
 |quite active and very responsive.

I am willing to fix any issues as fast as possible.  Maintaining
it as a package should usually involve nothing but adjustment of
the version number.  In fact anything else looks like a bug to me.
And, further more, it is likely that nothing much happens in the
two years which follow, we (the program and i) just saw the 5th
anniversary of our relationship, and i will spend some time with
other projects next.  Some things here and there, but henceforth
nothing in a hurry no more.

Thanks again Hilko from the snail and myself.

From rainy Germany,

|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

Reply to: