From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 23 21:11:07 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864B3106564A; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:11:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scf@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.farley.org (mail.farley.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:14d3:2::11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABB28FC0C; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:11:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thor.farley.org (HPooka@thor.farley.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:14d3:1::5]) by mail.farley.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9NLB5CI022842; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:11:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from scf@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:11:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Sean C. Farley" To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <4E9B9863.6090106@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <4E9B9863.6090106@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (BSF 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mail.farley.org Cc: Marco Beishuizen , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Ted Hatfield Subject: Re: Alpine mail client discontinued? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:11:07 -0000 On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/16/2011 15:49, Ted Hatfield wrote: >> >> A quick google search shows >> >> re-alpine >> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/re-alpine/develop >> http://re-alpine.sourceforge.net/ >> >> The continuation of the Alpine email client from University of >> Washington. >> >> Maybe you would like to create a port. > > My read of the differences between the existing Alpine port and the last > released version of re-alpine is that it's not worth disrupting the > currently stable port. If anyone feels differently, just let me know. For me, I have not noticed any difference, but I may not have been hitting any code that has changed significantly. I think the existing port could easily use re-alpine's source without much change. The binary is still alpine. Of course, this could (should?) wait until 9 is out the door. Sean -- scf@FreeBSD.org