Re: [ITP] neomutt

[Federico Kircheis <federico.kircheis@gmail.com>]

On 01/21/2018 09:18 PM, Federico Kircheis wrote:
> 
> On 01/21/2018 06:51 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
>> Maybe it's not a good idea to describe it as a fork of Mutt, when 
>> https://www.neomutt.org/about.html says "It's not a fork of Mutt.
>> It's a large set of feature patches." :)
> 
> Well, I copied the text from the homepage, so it seems to be 
> inconsistent. AFAIK the code has been forked and enhanced/patched and 
> something merged back, but just to be sure I'll ask the authors what 
> they would prefer as description.
> 

I've asked the author of the project: "NeoMutt is a fork of Mutt".

Neomutt is not a fork of Mutt in the sense that the two projects are 
diverging.
Fixes done 'upstream' are backported to neomutt, meaning that neomutt is 
an extension of mutt.

>> You need to provide at least --prefix=/usr to ./configure (currently 
>> everything is being installed into /usr/local, not /usr), and possibly 
>> others to satisfy the requirements of [1]
>>
>> [1] https://cygwin.com/packaging-package-files.html#package_contents
> 
> I updated the neomutt.cygport file and passed all parameters as 
> described in [1], I'm unsure if localstatedir and infodir are really 
> supported since they do not appear in the "Makefile.autosetup" file (but 
> they do appear in the "system.ctl" file...).
> 
> I'll need to investigate it, maybe neomutt defaults are the same with 
> those required (for example, the default for mandir seems to be the same 
> as the required path), or maybe they are not used at all.
> 

The parameters seems to be part of autosetup, but those directories are 
not used by neomutt.


Is there anything else I can/should do in order to get the package approved?

Federico