ports/81248: [NEW PORT] mail/mutt-lite, a lite mutt package

[Udo Schweigert]

The following reply was made to PR ports/81248; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Udo Schweigert <Udo.Schweigert at siemens.com>
To: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi at freebsd.jazztel.es>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at freebsd.org, udo.schweigert at siemens.com
Subject: Re: ports/81248: [NEW PORT] mail/mutt-lite, a lite mutt package
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:39:39 +0200

 On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 10:40:43 +0200, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
 > 
 >>Number:         81248
 >>Category:       ports
 >>Synopsis:       [NEW PORT] mail/mutt-lite, a lite mutt package
 >>Confidential:   no
 >>Severity:       non-critical
 >>Priority:       low
 >>Responsible:    freebsd-ports-bugs
 >>State:          open
 >>Quarter:        
 >>Keywords:       
 >>Date-Required:
 >>Class:          change-request
 >>Submitter-Id:   current-users
 >>Arrival-Date:   Thu May 19 08:50:02 GMT 2005
 >>Closed-Date:
 >>Last-Modified:
 >>Originator:     Jose M Rodriguez
 >>Release:        FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p1 i386
 >>Organization:
 > Redes JM
 >>Environment:
 > System: FreeBSD orion.redesjm.local 5.4-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p1 #0: Wed May 18 01:34:10 CEST 2005 root at orion.redesjm.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ORION i386
 >>Description:
 > 	Add a new slave port, mail/mutt-lite
 > 	Just to get a mutt-lite package on the package cluster
 > 
 > 	This need a litle patch to mail-mutt, but the MUTT-LITE
 > 	knob is allready implemented
 > 
 > 	mail/mutt maintainer CC'd
 
 
 I wouldn't object to this, although I don't see why we need that as a port of
 it own. If that is added to the tree I would highly recommend that the
 maintainer of the master and the slave port are the same.
 
 Best regards
 
 -- 
 Udo Schweigert, Siemens AG   | Voice      : +49 89 636 42170
 CT IC CERT, Siemens CERT     | Fax        : +49 89 636 41166
 D-81730 Muenchen / Germany   | email      : udo.schweigert at siemens.com