[Bug 232058] mail/mutt-lite: Request to restore port

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232058

--- Comment #3 from Jeremy Chadwick <jdc at koitsu.org> ---
Thank you for the explaination.  I'll wait and see what happens in 2-4 weeks.

Any time I see a basic-functionality port orphaned, I research why it's being
orphaned.  I couldn't find any justification in commit messages, discussion of
it on public mailing lists, etc..  All I found was what was in r476197, which
was basically "maintainer requests removal".  Maintainers have that right,
absolutely, and I support that.  But I asked myself as someone who has been a
committer in the past: "was this stub port painful to maintain?" and looked --
no patches, in fact compared to some other stub ports, this looked remarkably
basic:

https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/mail/mutt/Makefile?revision=474967&view=markup#l48
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/mail/mutt/Makefile?revision=474967&view=markup#l100
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/mail/mutt/Makefile?revision=474967&view=markup#l108

This is when I discovered the Makefile shims for MUTT_LITE were left in place,
which made this situation even more bizarre (to me).  I thought: "why would
someone deprecate a stub port yet leave the shims in place?"  The best answer I
came up with was "maybe the stub port is getting renamed, similar to how
vim-lite got renamed to vim-console recently?"  But I couldn't find anything of
the sort.

I don't want to complicate your life as a port maintainer.  Really.  I've just
never seen this situation happen before -- orphaning yes, maintainers wanting
to stop maintaining a stub or one-off yes, programs as a whole going the way of
the buffalo yes, but not this situation in this manner.

I'm fine with switching to mutt (from mutt-lite), but when doing so, I like to
understand exactly why something that worked just fine has to be removed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.