On 31-07-2017 04:55:58 -0500, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 17-07-31 09:11:19, 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,
> > 
> > Nick
> > 
> > -- 
> > Nicolas Bock <nicolasbock@gentoo.org>
> 
> It was my understanding that neomutt was mainly mutt with a bunch of
> patches added on, from what I can see, those patches are already handled
> by use flags in the mutt package itself.
>
> https://www.neomutt.org/about.html describes itself as a large set of
> feature patches and not a fork as well.  Are there missing patches that
> need to be added to the mutt package?

These days NeoMutt really is a fork, with a complete code-re-indent,
function name changes, etc.[1]  They move fast, deviating from Mutt and
no longer submit patches to Mutt.  It remains to be seen where both
projects end up, IMO.  It is no longer feasible to add features from
NeoMutt to Mutt, and Mutt moves along its own path (with
features/improvements) as well.

For now it seems useful to me to have both mutt and neomutt around.  I
sent my detailed comments on the neomutt ebuild to Nicholas off-list
already.  The changes suggested should show even more how the two are
different.

Thanks,
Fabian

[1] http://mailman.neomutt.org/pipermail/neomutt-devel-neomutt.org/2017-April/000364.html

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level