Wed Jan 24 18:07:00 GMT 2018
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
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 
>>  https://cygwin.com/packaging-package-files.html#package_contents
> I updated the neomutt.cygport file and passed all parameters as
> described in , 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?
More information about the Cygwin-apps