On czw, 2017-08-10 at 09:54 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 10-08-2017 09:40:30 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On czw, 2017-08-10 at 06:58 +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:11:19AM +0200, Nicolas Bock wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to add neomutt to the tree. This new package is meant as 
> > > > an alternative and not a replacement of the existing mutt package.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for all of the great suggestions and feedback!
> > > 
> > > This is round two. I have update the ebuild with all your 
> > > suggestions. I have also added support for eselecting between mutt 
> > > and neomutt. Before the eselect ebuild can land though, we need to 
> > > rename the mutt binary so that the managed link can be called 
> > > mutt.
> > 
> > What for? How many people are exactly in the dire need of having both
> > installed simultaneously and switching between them? If you really can't
> > learn to type the new command, add IUSE=symlink blocking original mutt
> > and be done with it. Don't add more unowned files to /usr by another
> > poorly written eselect module.
> 
> Be nice!  No need to be bitchy here (and in the rest of your review).
> Nicolas is just trying.
> 
> Me, as maintainer of Mutt, thought it was a good idea, because it allows
> people to easily have both installed at the same time, which in this
> interesting time for both projects is not a weird thing to have.

I don't see how eselect helps that. People can just run neomutt by
typing... neomutt, right? It works without the symlink, right?

> If there is a policy/move to get rid of eselect, then sorry, I am not
> aware of that.  I can live with a symlink USE-flag.  It doesn't seem
> very elegant to me, but it would work for this scenario.
> 

The move is against orphaned files in /usr that are randomly changed by
runtime tools rather than the package manager.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny