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

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 04:46:21PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I think there are a facts you should seriously consider before
> continuing with this approach.
> 
> Firstly, the existing package is neomutt, but called mutt. So the
> existing package users are neomutt users, and the existing reported
> bugs are bugs in neomutt.  (The wisdom of having moved the package
> *to* neomutt at this point is irrelevant, because it has happened
> whether we like it or not.)

Yes, I can understand the desire to sweep the whole mess under the rug.

I have an alternative proposal.  How about if Mutt 1.9.1, with just the
basic changes required by Debian, is uploaded as the next mutt package.
Then the team can orphan the package.

Since Debian has basically taken away all my work, and given NeoMutt the
privilege of using the mutt package to establish itself in Debian and
all its derivatives, how about you let mutt package users actually *use*
my work for once before you move on.  Establish neomutt as a separate
package, and let the users who really care install that for themselves.

> If you are suggesting that the package name "mutt" is going to be real
> "mutt" in future, then what happens to existing users?

Horrors!  They might accidentally use an actual Mutt release!  They
might discover that 1.9.1 is actually pretty good, and that a fair chunk
of the improvements they thought came from NeoMutt might have come from
Mutt instead!

> What are their expectations?

I believe mutt package users should expect to use Mutt.  Please take a
look at http://www.mutt.org/news.html and
http://www.mutt.org/doc/UPDATING.  We've been releasing regularly for a
while now.

> Would users who are using neomutt features not find the change to be a
> regression from their point of view?

They can switch to the neomutt package then.

-Kevin