[gentoo-dev] Intentions to remove mail-client/muttng from the tree

[gentoo-dev] Intentions to remove mail-client/muttng from the tree

[Fabian Groffen]

Hi all,

mail-client/muttng currently sits in the tree as some sort of orphan.
It used to be a fork of Mutt, having many patches applied, features
added and code cleaned up.  However, at a certain point the project
died, one of the main developers went back to Mutt and applied his
patches there.  Currently most of these patches are applied in Mutt's
sources, or patches have been made to work with Mutt.  Some have even
improved a lot (e.g. SMTP support is native in Mutt, while it uses
libesmtp in muttng).

Current state of muttng is a bit vague.  It tries to be a collection of
patches against the latest development version of Mutt.  However, since
the latest svn release of muttng, I have never updated the package, as I
don't really know what can or should be released from it.  The result is
IMO bitrot, and bugs/security holes are not fixed.  Additionally, Mutt
seems to have superceeded muttng by now.

For this reason I would like to drop muttng from the tree (in a normal
procedure, of course).  I know at least one Gentoo (Security) dev seems
to use muttng instead of mutt currently.  If someone knows how life for
muttng should continue, feel free to take over the package.  If you are
using muttng now, consider moving to the latest Mutt.

Please speak up now if there are major reasons to keep muttng in the
tree, despite being unmaintained and out of date.

-- 
Fabian Groffen

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Intentions to remove mail-client/muttng from the tree

[Lars Weiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 814 bytes --]

* Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> [07/05/26 10:52 +0200]:
> Please speak up now if there are major reasons to keep muttng in the
> tree, despite being unmaintained and out of date.

I'm okay with removing muttng from the tree.  Some weeks ago
I tested the old mutt again, but unfortunately not all
patches work the same like in muttng.  Especially the
sidebar-patch which made my life easier.

But it seems the project is really dead.  Last mail on their
list is months old and the latest commit almost a year ago.
It's easy to convert back your config-files to mutt, but
avoid the rare pitfalls ;-)

Regards, Lars

-- 
Lars Weiler  <pylon@gentoo.org>  +49-171-1963258
Instant Messaging     : pylon@jabber.ccc.de
Gentoo Linux PowerPC  : Developer
Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS Administrator

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Intentions to remove mail-client/muttng from the tree

[Fernando J. Pereda]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1058 bytes --]

On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 02:51:39PM +0200, Lars Weiler wrote:
> * Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> [07/05/26 10:52 +0200]:
> > Please speak up now if there are major reasons to keep muttng in the
> > tree, despite being unmaintained and out of date.
> 
> I'm okay with removing muttng from the tree.  Some weeks ago
> I tested the old mutt again, but unfortunately not all
> patches work the same like in muttng.  Especially the
> sidebar-patch which made my life easier.

Just FYI the sidebar-patch is going to be taken out of the Gentoo's
mutt-patchset. It is going to get a USE flag for itself and it is going
to be either sidebar or rest of the patches.

This is because of bug #174080. Upstream claims 'it is a configuration
problem' and I claim that the sidebar patch is braindamaged and so it is
going the way of the dodo. Since people seem to use it anyway, you'll be
able to use it with USE=sidebar in the next mutt's release.

- ferdy

-- 
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED  ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Intentions to remove mail-client/muttng from the tree

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 371 bytes --]

I think the most important patch is the side bar, which is also
available in mutt (thanks so much ferdy) :-)

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
http://forums.gentoo.org   || http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/proctors/
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org || proctors (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums             || #gentoo-proctors (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Intentions to remove mail-client/muttng from the tree

[Lars Weiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1186 bytes --]

* Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> [07/05/26 10:52 +0200]:
> Current state of muttng is a bit vague.  It tries to be a collection of
> patches against the latest development version of Mutt.

I tried to create a muttng-flavoured mutt ebuild out of this
patches-collection.  Initially I wanted a sidebar-patch
which includes $sidebar_newmail_only, but unfortunately that
setting has been removed from the muttng-patchset as well
:-(

Anybody who is interested can download the patched
mutt-ebuild¹ and the muttng-patchset².  I'm not sure if I
want to maintain that in the future, as the patchset needs
`quilt` for applying the patches in the correct order.  I
manually moved the files with numbers prefixed and packed
them into a tar-ball.  As you can imagine, this is some work
for every release and it should be automated.

Regards, Lars

¹ http://dev.gentoo.org/~pylon/files/mutt-muttng-overlay.tar.bz2
² http://dev.gentoo.org/~pylon/files/mutt-1.5.15-muttng-patches.tar.bz2

-- 
Lars Weiler  <pylon@gentoo.org>  +49-171-1963258
Instant Messaging     : pylon@jabber.ccc.de
Gentoo Linux PowerPC  : Developer
Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS Administrator

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Last rites mail-client/muttng

[Fabian Groffen]

Masked mail-client/muttng pending removal, unless someone steps up/takes
over.  Removal after 30 days.


On 26-05-2007 10:52:07 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> mail-client/muttng currently sits in the tree as some sort of orphan.
> It used to be a fork of Mutt, having many patches applied, features
> added and code cleaned up.  However, at a certain point the project
> died, one of the main developers went back to Mutt and applied his
> patches there.  Currently most of these patches are applied in Mutt's
> sources, or patches have been made to work with Mutt.  Some have even
> improved a lot (e.g. SMTP support is native in Mutt, while it uses
> libesmtp in muttng).
> 
> Current state of muttng is a bit vague.  It tries to be a collection of
> patches against the latest development version of Mutt.  However, since
> the latest svn release of muttng, I have never updated the package, as I
> don't really know what can or should be released from it.  The result is
> IMO bitrot, and bugs/security holes are not fixed.  Additionally, Mutt
> seems to have superceeded muttng by now.
> 
> For this reason I would like to drop muttng from the tree (in a normal
> procedure, of course).  I know at least one Gentoo (Security) dev seems
> to use muttng instead of mutt currently.  If someone knows how life for
> muttng should continue, feel free to take over the package.  If you are
> using muttng now, consider moving to the latest Mutt.
> 
> Please speak up now if there are major reasons to keep muttng in the
> tree, despite being unmaintained and out of date.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list