On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:54:41 +0000, Dmitry Bogatov writes: >please make `nmh' co-installable with `mmh'.
upon reviewing of mmh's documentation and stated goals i don't think this will work. i think that mmh has to conflict with nmh. it's not compatible with nmh (except in terms of mail storage on disk), and this breaks exmh and mh-e (which depend on nmh and its behaviour). the readme states: "...rather mmh breaks compatibility to nmh in order to modernize and simplify it." "...my experimental version more and more feels like being a fork." for example, schnalke's thesis shows that he's removed pretty essential tools like post and reinstated spost, which nmh has deprecated completely in favour of only post. to switch some nmh/mmh tools over to the other flavour via alternatives is doomed to fail in my opinion, because it'll cause any of the remaining *mh tools to operate on the wrong defaults/preferences. this will cause nothing but confusion and frustration for users. to always switch all tools over, well, that's achieved in a better fashion by just having one of the two packages on a box. unless you can provide me with a compelling resonining and case for why this mixing of incompatible and overlapping code should be beneficial i'll close this as wontfix and make nmh explicitely conflict with mmh. regards az -- Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 2FCCF66BB963BD5F + http://snafu.priv.at/ A successful sysadmin must accept no limits on his laziness. -- Peter da Silva
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
