Re: removing mutt patches
- Reply: Amar Takhar : "Re: removing mutt patches"
- In reply to: Derek Schrock : "removing mutt patches"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 18:19:42 UTC
* Derek Schrock <dereks@lifeofadishwasher.com> [20230504 18:33]: > However, given that some of the patches are part of neomutt I think that > if you need these features you can either install that or build locally > with local patches or better yet work with upstream to include to > directly to mutt. > > I've always wanted to drop all patches since I don't use any of the > features so in turn don't have a good means to test however I've kept > them in for legacy reasons. Disclaimer, NeoMutt user here (former user of Mutt with "random" patches). IMHO: go ahead and drop them. FreeBSD ports deliver "vanilla" upstream software whenever possible. The situation with Mutt seems to be a bit special, because even many years ago, there were a *lot* of patches floating around that upstream didn't include. Whether there was just a lack of resources or there was some reason to reject them, I don't know, but IMHO, that's not important. The important thing is, these patches added valuable features, but that's exactly where NeoMutt took the stage as a fork including many of these features. Before that happened, there was some justification to offer feature patches as a distributor. But, IMHO, nowadays, there isn't any more. And in case some feature is missing in NeoMutt, putting a feature request there is probably more promising. So, again IMHO, let's stick to the "only patch ustream when really needed to fix something" policy with Mutt as well. Cheers, Felix -- Felix Palmen <zirias@FreeBSD.org> {private} felix@palmen-it.de -- ports committer (mentee) -- {web} http://palmen-it.de {pgp public key} http://palmen-it.de/pub.txt {pgp fingerprint} 6936 13D5 5BBF 4837 B212 3ACC 54AD E006 9879 F231