On 08/10/2017 01:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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.
> 

Then how do we explain the reasoning for the other 50 or so eselect
modules? No doubt at least a handful of them modify symlinks in /usr,
and have similarly few options to choose from, such as eselect-vi.
Should we remove those as well?

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6