Re: state of the fork
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 01:16:55PM -0300, Douglas Campos wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 09:21:32AM +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> > - Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
>
> Again my comment is as a user, since mutt-kz is in every way backwards
> compatible with mutt I think it would be more consistent to keep the
> executable name same. For example both uses the same user startup
> file, ~/.muttrc, the configuration formats are same, and so on.
Having a different executable name would help folks like me that are
unsure about switching to not tamper with everything and try in parallel
I package mutt-kz in an rpm for F18. If executable names were
different, I think it would be a lot more work for me to integrate the
mutt-kz specific things to the Fedora spec file I get from fedorahosted.
Just offering a different perspective.
You could try something else; keep mutt from your distribution
installed, and run mutt-kz from it's compilation directory. I used to
do that before I figured out the changes needed to the spec file.
If you want, I could also provide my source rpm.
Hope this helps,
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.