Bug 950233
| Summary: | [RFE] Apply sidebar patch to mutt | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ben Boeckel <fedora> |
| Component: | mutt | Assignee: | Honza Horak <hhorak> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | hhorak, lsm5, mlichvar, pertusus, rbarlow |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-07-12 08:52:24 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Ben Boeckel
2013-04-09 21:46:02 UTC
Or perhaps, package mutt-sidebar as a separate rpm? For example, debian has mutt-patched which provides sidebar (and some other features). Ping? Sorry, guys, it disappeared from my radar somehow. Well, to be honest, I like that feature (not tested though), but I'm not very interested in maintaining such a huge patch downstream (even if the path itself has it's own upstream ;)). Maintaining any patch downstream is usually quite a lot of work. Also I'm not a fan of introducing a new "more patched" mutt package either, this wouldn't be a good approach I guess. However, I don't see any bug report proposed to upstream, or did I miss it? If there was no discussion with upstream yet about including this feature to mutt itself, you should start one. If there was one already and upstream doesn't want to apply the patch from any reason, it should be a sign for us to not apply it in Fedora as well. The last concern (which won't be hard to solve probably) is a license of the patch -- I see GPL mentioned on the Freecode page, but no version specified (and no version mentioned in the patch itself), which is not enough for Fedora. We'd have to make clear that the license allows us to include the patch in GPLv2+ (mutt license) source. I know, it shouldn't be problem, since the patch is created just for this purpose. So, please, contact upstream and try to convince them to use the patch if not already done. For the sake of Fedora, I don't thing the feature is worth the trouble of downstream maintenance, so I'm tempting to close this as wontfix. As per comment above, we're not much interested in maintaining this patch downstream, so closing this bug. |