ports/63192: mutt change breaks vim syntax highlighting

[Dan Foster]

Hot Diggety! David O'Brien was rumored to have written:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 04:27:41AM +0000, Dan Foster wrote:
> > This appears to be why vim developers will not commit the patch, and
> > they seem to be on solid ground with that position given the reasoning.
> 
> Can you forward what they said?  No need to spam GNATs with it.

Ah, sorry about that. (GNATs)

Sure, let me dig up.
  
> > So I would, therefore, like to politely request reconsideration of the
> > proposed vim patch for inclusion to the FreeBSD vim port or to have the
> > mutt patch-mktemp patch backed out.
> 
> You forgot to CC the Mutt maintainer to see if he thinks we should keep
> the mutt patch. :-)

:-)

(reference understood)

It's just that... this whole thing, while not a big deal, is just
inconsistent. If you'll bear with me for a moment, and I'll explain.

A non-official (ie, not sanctioned by the Mutt developers) patch applied
to FreeBSD-specific port for Mutt, which breaks a particular function in
the FreeBSD vim port.

Then the vim patch is rejected on grounds of not coming from the
original developers, but the Mutt change was accepted...?

Speaking bluntly and honestly (and please don't read into it the wrong
way), I would have to say that I don't think that's either fair or
consistent.

How am I going to make a compelling case for the vim developers to adopt
a patch that only applies to one specific OS and wasn't even a change
sanctioned (to the best of my knowledge) by the Mutt developers?

I would have to say that if it was a FreeBSD-specific change that broke
a function in another FreeBSD port, there should also be a
FreeBSD-specific patch applied to the port (vim in this case), or for
the original patch (for Mutt) to be backed out.

A case could be made for backing out that particular mutt patch; mutt
worked ok before the patch. Granted, I don't know the things that may
come to a ports maintainer's attention, but looking at that one-liner
diff, it seems like a cosmetic change rather than a functionality change
to fix an issue. If there's a code issue, it should probably be
submitted to the Mutt developers for inclusion into the source tree...?

Equally, a case could be made for adding the vim patch locally to the
FreeBSD ports -- it was a FreeBSD-specific local change made to the mutt
port; by that token, it would be appropriate to fix functionality in the
vim port that was broken by inclusion of a small patch.

What does the FreeBSD Mutt port maintainer think? :)

-Dan