Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:24:37 +0400 From: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@highsecure.ru> To: Udo Schweigert <Udo.Schweigert@siemens.com> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/82235: New port: mail/mutt-ng Message-ID: <42AFF3D5.6010603@highsecure.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050615090623.GA27207@alaska.cert.siemens.com> References: <200506150810.j5F8AEPA013710@freefall.freebsd.org> <20050615090623.GA27207@alaska.cert.siemens.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Udo Schweigert wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 08:10:14 +0000, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > >>The following reply was made to PR ports/82235; it has been noted by GNATS. >> >>From: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@highsecure.ru> >>To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, vsevolod@highsecure.ru, >> novel@FreeBSD.org >>Cc: >>Subject: Re: ports/82235: New port: mail/mutt-ng >>Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:02:13 +0400 >> >> As for me mutt-devel dumps core when it is built with sidebar support >> during switching mailboxes. Another reason is that mutt-ng is official >> fork of mutt client and I think that it would include some interesting >> features. But if you think that it is not worth porting there is no >> problem - I'll use it for myself. > > > As the maintainer of the mutt ports I vote against it. > > 1. The -ng project was launched because there was a feeling by some people > that the mutt developers don't drive the project with enough power. That was > mainly because the main mutt-developer refuses to include patches into > the source tree he considers unstable. This behavior is IMHO reasonable > and OK as I mainly want a stable mail client. As for me mutt-ng works more stable, than my mutt-devel. > 2. I think all features of mutt-ng can be compiled into mutt-devel if you > switch on the right knobs. Perhaps I have a bad memory, but I cannot remember all knobs that I must turn on to build what I want. > 3. When did you try to use the sidebar support (it has been fixed by the > patch-author recently)? I got feedback by another user who said the new > patch fixed his issues. Did you submit a PR on that? No I haven't submit a PR because I thought that the problem is in mutt itself not in port. I was using version about one or two months old. And it dumps core in some cases, not only during swithches mailboxes. BTW, I personally don't see any reason why not include mutt-ng to ports tree except one: now there is no official release.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42AFF3D5.6010603>