neomutt @20160910 New port as an alternative to mutt

[lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)]

​Neomutt is the latest release of Mutt (currently 1.7) with a collection of popular patches applied.

This port should be much easier to maintain than the existing mutt port since some of the patches in that port conflict with each other (so they can't be enabled at the same time) and are version-specific (so they need to be refreshed on upgrades). None of these problems exist with Neomutt because they are resolved by the project.

I preserved all variants and defaults of the mutt port, with the exception that I decided to enable ssl by default.

I volunteer to maintain this port in case nobody else wants to be the maintainer.

[danielluke (Daniel J. Luke)]

Minor changes to portfile + add conflicts to mutt portfile (r152763)

Thanks!

I would suggest it might be worthwhile to make the 'mutt' port only 'vanilla' mutt and let people who want the patched-in features use neomutt instead (mutt is currently nomaintainer, though, so someone would need to volunteer to maintain it - which I think would be more likely to happen if the maintainer didn't have to do as much patch juggling).

[lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)]

I think it makes perfect sense and it is a great idea. Actually what led me to introduce this port was that I was going to upgrade mutt to 1.7 but the patches broke and I was trying to find new versions of them, and I found neomutt in the process.

If we go forward with the idea of mutt being pure vanilla upstream, I volunteer to be the maintainer since I'm maintaining neomutt anyway. I can bump it to 1.7, drop all patches and put a note warning that to get the patches you should install neomutt instead.

[lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)]

I submitted an updated vanilla mutt port on #52267.

[neverpanic (Clemens Lang)]

TBH I think we should just make the mutt port ship neomutt and deprecate the mutt-devel port in favor of a current neomutt. I don't think it's worth the effort to maintain an addition mutt port.

[lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)]

I don't object to this plan (and it's also less work for me). I just thought that some people may want to use 'vanilla' mutt.

[danielluke (Daniel J. Luke)]

Replying to leonardo.schenkel@…:

I don't object to this plan (and it's also less work for me). I just thought that some people may want to use 'vanilla' mutt.

Since you're volunteering to be maintainer, you can decide which option you want to pursue (I think either is reasonable).

[lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)]

From a strictly maintainer perspective, naturally I would prefer to maintain just a single port instead of two. I see little reason for both to exist since neomutt is a strict superset of mutt — and in distros such as Debian the 'regular' mutt package is also heavily patched as well (and some of these patches were taken from NeoMutt).

In case we go ahead with this plan, is there a way we could make one port an alias for the other? I try searching but I couldn't figure out how to do that. Should mutt be an alias to neomutt or vice-versa? What are your thoughts?

[neverpanic (Clemens Lang)]

Look at the mutt-devel Portfile, which is replaced_by mutt. The same approach can be used to automatically replace installations of mutt with neomutt.

[lbschenkel (Leonardo Brondani Schenkel)]

I have proposed obsoleting the mutt port on #52297.