[Pkg-mutt-maintainers] Bug#870635: mutt package is not using the official mutt tarball

[Antonio Radici]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 09:52:06AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:21:51PM +0000, Antonio Radici wrote:
> > as I said on the original thread I'm planning to fix this, and as you
> > can see there have been no new releases until the fix is in place.
> 
> It would be great if you could summarize *in this bug* what's your plan of
> action.
> 
> We are packaging neomutt, but calling it mutt. The obvious solution is to
> rename the package.  "mutt" could be used as transitional name to smoothly
> handle upgrades. This would not need to live for more than one release.
> 
> This would not proclude someone else from packaging "vanilla" mutt if they
> wanted to.

Sorry for the delay, my plan of action is to stop packaging neomutt with this
name, I'll create a new neomutt package (TBD by end of the month) and I'll think
if there is the need of a transitional package, the problem of a transitional
package is that mutt won't be packaged as mutt in stretch. To prevent that from
happening we will need two packages (mutt and neomutt) from two different
upstream sources.

So far the only thing which is certainly going to happen is the creation of the
neomutt package, then I could package the newest mutt as 'mutt' and think about
whether mutt needs to become a transitional package (which in that case will
remove mutt).

This is roughly my plan of action