[opensuse-factory] mutt 1.9.1 reports itself as neomutt ???

older
[opensuse-factory] KGPG : Serious...

Patrick Shanahan

25 May 2018 25 May '18

15:04

from the cl, 10:58 Crash:~ > zypper se -sx mutt Loading repository data... Reading installed packages... S | Name | Type | Version | Arch | Repository ---+------+---------+-----------+--------+------------------------ i+ | mutt | package | 1.9.1-1.3 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed OSS v | mutt | package | 1.9.1-1.3 | i586 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed OSS zypper -v in --force mutt 10:59 Crash:~ > mutt -v |grep -i neomutt NeoMutt 20170912 (1.9.0) To learn more about NeoMutt, visit: http://www.neomutt.org/ If you find a bug in NeoMutt, please raise an issue at: https://github.com/neomutt/neomutt/issues or send an email to: why does installing mutt 1.9.1 actually install neomutt 1.9.0 -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Show replies by date

Peter Suetterlin

25 May 25 May

15:14

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

why does installing mutt 1.9.1 actually install neomutt 1.9.0

Good question. I've noticed it before: If you look in the bottom status line of mutt you see that it also reports itself as NeoMutt there... And it must have been like that for quite some time. In 'rpm -q --changelog mutt' you will find * Thu May 12 2016 werner@suse.de - Update to mutt version 1.6.1 (2016-05-01): ! Bug fix release. No features were modified or added. I didn't really care, as long as it does what it should ;^> Strange though that both mutt and neomutt are available as package. Guess the latter is sort of the bleeding edge version? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan

15:25

* Peter Suetterlin [05-25-18 11:15]:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
why does installing mutt 1.9.1 actually install neomutt 1.9.0

Good question. I've noticed it before: If you look in the bottom status line of mutt you see that it also reports itself as NeoMutt there...

And it must have been like that for quite some time. In 'rpm -q --changelog mutt' you will find

* Thu May 12 2016 werner@suse.de - Update to mutt version 1.6.1 (2016-05-01): ! Bug fix release. No features were modified or added.

I didn't really care, as long as it does what it should ;^>

Strange though that both mutt and neomutt are available as package. Guess the latter is sort of the bleeding edge version?

yes and no, I see both available, but ... there was a somewhat heated exchange on the mutt.dev list some time ago and it appeared resolved that neomutt would cease advertising itself as mutt. neomutt actually is quite different but appears similar. functions are not the same. neomutt contains features no on mutt but those features also can make scripts fail and other problems. in reality, mutt should be mutt and neomutt should be neomutt. mnsho -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Peter Suetterlin

16:01

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

there was a somewhat heated exchange on the mutt.dev list some time ago and it appeared resolved that neomutt would cease advertising itself as mutt.

Well, the program itself does report as neomutt, so it seems to be the packing in OS that obfuscates this.

...

neomutt actually is quite different but appears similar. functions are not the same. neomutt contains features no on mutt but those features also can make scripts fail and other problems.

I'm using my mutt configuration since many years, largely unchanged. So it seems to be backwards compatible in some way. That's what I meant.

...

in reality, mutt should be mutt and neomutt should be neomutt.

ACK. And/or do this via alternatives.

...

mnsho

Well, there's not really much to discuss about it, you're just plain right ;^> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan

16:11

* Peter Suetterlin [05-25-18 12:03]:

...

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
there was a somewhat heated exchange on the mutt.dev list some time ago and it appeared resolved that neomutt would cease advertising itself as mutt.

Well, the program itself does report as neomutt, so it seems to be the packing in OS that obfuscates this.

...
neomutt actually is quite different but appears similar. functions are not the same. neomutt contains features no on mutt but those features also can make scripts fail and other problems.

I'm using my mutt configuration since many years, largely unchanged. So it seems to be backwards compatible in some way. That's what I meant.

...
in reality, mutt should be mutt and neomutt should be neomutt.

ACK. And/or do this via alternatives.

...
mnsho

Well, there's not really much to discuss about it, you're just plain right ;^>

https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1094717 -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Daniel Morris

29 May 29 May

10:36

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:11:52PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

...
...
in reality, mutt should be mutt and neomutt should be neomutt.

This was similar in 42.3 and I thought Leap had already made the change to neomutt: https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2017-08/msg00531.html Which version of mutt were you using before, and what additional breakage did you notice between versions? Daniel -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan

21:27

* Daniel Morris [05-29-18 06:39]:

...

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:11:52PM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
...
...
in reality, mutt should be mutt and neomutt should be neomutt.

This was similar in 42.3 and I thought Leap had already made the change to neomutt:

https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2017-08/msg00531.html

Which version of mutt were you using before, and what additional breakage did you notice between versions?

I don't see any "breakage", at least in my usage. and I am on Tw and have no idea when mutt started reporting itself as neomutt as that is not a function I visit often. but it is WRONG. it is not neomutt and should not report as such. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Stefan Seyfried

30 May 30 May

06:35

On 29.05.2018 23:27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

but it is WRONG. it is not neomutt and should not report as such.

You are probably WRONG. seife@strolchi:/dev/shm> osc -A suse co -c openSUSE:Factory mutt A /dev/shm A /dev/shm/mutt A /dev/shm/mutt/README.alternates A /dev/shm/mutt/Signature_conversion A /dev/shm/mutt/aw.listreply.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/bsc907453-CVE-2014-9116-jessie.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/bug-676388-largefile.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.15-wrapcolumn.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.20-sendgroupreplyto.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.21-mailcap.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.23-carriage-return.path A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.9i-pgpewrap.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.6.1-opennfs.dif A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.9.0-1.9.1.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.9.1.dif A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.changes A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.desktop A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.mailcap A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.png A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.spec A /dev/shm/mutt/neomutt-20170912.tar.gz A /dev/shm/mutt/neomutt-c030a8b.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/patch-1.5.24.vk.pgp_verbose_mime A /dev/shm/mutt/skel.muttrc A /dev/shm/mutt/widechar.sidebar.dif At revision 80. see that neomutt-20170912.tar.gz? That's what mutt is built from. seife@strolchi:~> rpm -qi mutt|grep URL URL : http://www.neomutt.org And in the end, it does not matter if it is "mutt with a hell of a lot of patches" or "neomutt". If (and why) we need an additional "neomutt" package, I do not know. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Peter Suetterlin

10:27

Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

On 29.05.2018 23:27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
but it is WRONG. it is not neomutt and should not report as such.

You are probably WRONG.

What is wrong is that there does exist a real mutt (from mutt.org, currently at 1.10.0), which - while having taken over some patches from neomutt - is a separate thing. The build in OS seems to be based on neomutt, and not on mutt. So it should not be called mutt.

...

see that neomutt-20170912.tar.gz? That's what mutt is built from.

Yes, on OS. So it's not mutt, but neomutt.

...

And in the end, it does not matter if it is "mutt with a hell of a lot of patches" or "neomutt". If (and why) we need an additional "neomutt" package, I do not know.

the neomutt one seems to be the latest neomutt, whereas neomutt-20170912 rather is some old(er) thing... It *is* somewhat irritating what is going on there... (and no, it's not because I have problems with compatibility or anything) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan

31 May 31 May

03:32

* Stefan Seyfried [05-30-18 23:25]:

...

On 29.05.2018 23:27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
but it is WRONG. it is not neomutt and should not report as such.

You are probably WRONG.

then if it is neomutt, it should be packaged as neomutt, not mutt

...

seife@strolchi:/dev/shm> osc -A suse co -c openSUSE:Factory mutt A /dev/shm A /dev/shm/mutt A /dev/shm/mutt/README.alternates A /dev/shm/mutt/Signature_conversion A /dev/shm/mutt/aw.listreply.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/bsc907453-CVE-2014-9116-jessie.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/bug-676388-largefile.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.15-wrapcolumn.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.20-sendgroupreplyto.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.21-mailcap.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.23-carriage-return.path A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.5.9i-pgpewrap.diff A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.6.1-opennfs.dif A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.9.0-1.9.1.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt-1.9.1.dif A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.changes A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.desktop A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.mailcap A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.png A /dev/shm/mutt/mutt.spec A /dev/shm/mutt/neomutt-20170912.tar.gz A /dev/shm/mutt/neomutt-c030a8b.patch A /dev/shm/mutt/patch-1.5.24.vk.pgp_verbose_mime A /dev/shm/mutt/skel.muttrc A /dev/shm/mutt/widechar.sidebar.dif At revision 80.

see that neomutt-20170912.tar.gz? That's what mutt is built from.

and that is NOT mutt.

...

seife@strolchi:~> rpm -qi mutt|grep URL URL : http://www.neomutt.org

And in the end, it does not matter if it is "mutt with a hell of a lot of patches" or "neomutt". If (and why) we need an additional "neomutt" package, I do not know.

it does matter and we do not need all the neomutt patches. and neomutt is not copyright Michael Elkins, mutt is. the package is fscked and needs fixing, it doesn't even report the correct version. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Lars Marowsky-Bree

11:31

On 2018-05-30T23:32:08, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

then if it is neomutt, it should be packaged as neomutt, not mutt

Fair. I prefer neomutt by far (and am amused, because I still remember how mutt started as patches to elm) with the whole search and other stuff build in, but if there are two distinct projects, they shouldn't be conflated like this.

...

it does matter and we do not need all the neomutt patches. and neomutt is not copyright Michael Elkins, mutt is.

It still is mostly Michael's copyright of course.

...

the package is fscked and needs fixing, it doesn't even report the correct version.

Open a bugzilla and submit a new mutt package and a rename of the current mutt to neomutt? -- SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) "Architects should open possibilities and not determine everything." (Ueli Zbinden) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan

11:57

* Lars Marowsky-Bree [05-31-18 07:31]:

...

On 2018-05-30T23:32:08, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
then if it is neomutt, it should be packaged as neomutt, not mutt

Fair. I prefer neomutt by far (and am amused, because I still remember how mutt started as patches to elm) with the whole search and other stuff build in, but if there are two distinct projects, they shouldn't be conflated like this.

doesn't really matter if they are "two distinct projects", they are two distinct "products". mutt != neomutt != mutt

...

...
it does matter and we do not need all the neomutt patches. and neomutt is not copyright Michael Elkins, mutt is.

It still is mostly Michael's copyright of course.

mostly doesn't work. mutt *is* Michael Elkins copyright.

...

...
the package is fscked and needs fixing, it doesn't even report the correct version.

Open a bugzilla and submit a new mutt package and a rename of the current mutt to neomutt?

are you only reading the last of the thread? there is a bug # reported earlier. and I want mutt as the package indicates, not neomutt. and mutt patches to accomplish features from neomutt are ok because it is still mutt. thankyou for your concern -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Lars Marowsky-Bree

12:27

On 2018-05-31T07:57:15, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

doesn't really matter if they are "two distinct projects", they are two distinct "products". mutt != neomutt != mutt

Open Source projects aren't products. Anyway.

...

...
Open a bugzilla and submit a new mutt package and a rename of the current mutt to neomutt? are you only reading the last of the thread? there is a bug # reported earlier. and I want mutt as the package indicates, not neomutt. and mutt patches to accomplish features from neomutt are ok because it is still mutt.

Sure. So the missing part is someone stepping forward to actually maintain a version of the original mutt. -- SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) "Architects should open possibilities and not determine everything." (Ueli Zbinden) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Stefan Seyfried

12:53

On 31.05.2018 14:27, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:

...

Sure. So the missing part is someone stepping forward to actually maintain a version of the original mutt.

If I was Werner, I'd just file a droprequest for openSUSE:Factory/mutt and be done with this discussion :-P -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan

13:09

* Lars Marowsky-Bree [05-31-18 08:28]:

...

On 2018-05-31T07:57:15, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
doesn't really matter if they are "two distinct projects", they are two distinct "products". mutt != neomutt != mutt

Open Source projects aren't products. Anyway.

...
...
Open a bugzilla and submit a new mutt package and a rename of the current mutt to neomutt? are you only reading the last of the thread? there is a bug # reported earlier. and I want mutt as the package indicates, not neomutt. and mutt patches to accomplish features from neomutt are ok because it is still mutt.

Sure. So the missing part is someone stepping forward to actually maintain a version of the original mutt.

https://download.opensuse.org/tumbleweed/repo/oss/x86_64/mutt-1.9.1-1.4.x86_... https://download.opensuse.org/tumbleweed/repo/oss/x86_64/neomutt-20180323-1.... https://download.opensuse.org/tumbleweed/repo/oss/x86_64/neomutt-20180512-1.... -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Simon Lees

13:03

On 31/05/18 21:27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Lars Marowsky-Bree [05-31-18 07:31]:

...
On 2018-05-30T23:32:08, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
then if it is neomutt, it should be packaged as neomutt, not mutt

Fair. I prefer neomutt by far (and am amused, because I still remember how mutt started as patches to elm) with the whole search and other stuff build in, but if there are two distinct projects, they shouldn't be conflated like this.

doesn't really matter if they are "two distinct projects", they are two distinct "products". mutt != neomutt != mutt

...
...
it does matter and we do not need all the neomutt patches. and neomutt is not copyright Michael Elkins, mutt is.

It still is mostly Michael's copyright of course.

mostly doesn't work. mutt *is* Michael Elkins copyright.

...
...
the package is fscked and needs fixing, it doesn't even report the correct version.

Open a bugzilla and submit a new mutt package and a rename of the current mutt to neomutt?

are you only reading the last of the thread? there is a bug # reported earlier. and I want mutt as the package indicates, not neomutt. and mutt patches to accomplish features from neomutt are ok because it is still mutt.

Out of curiosity what is the difference between mutt patched to have neomutt's features and neomutt the resulting source code is still going to be the same. Or would you just like a certain subset of the neomutt patches? if so how do you tell which ones you should and shouldn't have? From the looks of it the openSUSE maintainer has just decided they want mutt with all of neomutts features and the easiest way to do that is to just take the neomutt sources. Yes maybe it would be better if the package was renamed to neomutt and obsoleted the old mutt (because presumably most people want the extra features), but i'm guessing this change has happened organically over time and will likely remain like that until someone decides to do the work to create an alternate mutt package I guess without the new neomutt features. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B

Patrick Shanahan

13:11

* Simon Lees [05-31-18 09:05]:

...

On 31/05/18 21:27, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
* Lars Marowsky-Bree [05-31-18 07:31]:

...
On 2018-05-30T23:32:08, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
then if it is neomutt, it should be packaged as neomutt, not mutt

Fair. I prefer neomutt by far (and am amused, because I still remember how mutt started as patches to elm) with the whole search and other stuff build in, but if there are two distinct projects, they shouldn't be conflated like this.

doesn't really matter if they are "two distinct projects", they are two distinct "products". mutt != neomutt != mutt

...
...
it does matter and we do not need all the neomutt patches. and neomutt is not copyright Michael Elkins, mutt is.

It still is mostly Michael's copyright of course.

mostly doesn't work. mutt *is* Michael Elkins copyright.

...
...
the package is fscked and needs fixing, it doesn't even report the correct version.

Open a bugzilla and submit a new mutt package and a rename of the current mutt to neomutt?

are you only reading the last of the thread? there is a bug # reported earlier. and I want mutt as the package indicates, not neomutt. and mutt patches to accomplish features from neomutt are ok because it is still mutt.

Out of curiosity what is the difference between mutt patched to have neomutt's features and neomutt the resulting source code is still going to be the same. Or would you just like a certain subset of the neomutt patches? if so how do you tell which ones you should and shouldn't have? From the looks of it the openSUSE maintainer has just decided they want mutt with all of neomutts features and the easiest way to do that is to just take the neomutt sources.

Yes maybe it would be better if the package was renamed to neomutt and obsoleted the old mutt (because presumably most people want the extra features), but i'm guessing this change has happened organically over time and will likely remain like that until someone decides to do the work to create an alternate mutt package I guess without the new neomutt features.

David Sterba

4 Jun 4 Jun

10:32

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:04:18AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

zypper -v in --force mutt

10:59 Crash:~ > mutt -v |grep -i neomutt NeoMutt 20170912 (1.9.0) To learn more about NeoMutt, visit: http://www.neomutt.org/ If you find a bug in NeoMutt, please raise an issue at: https://github.com/neomutt/neomutt/issues or send an email to:

why does installing mutt 1.9.1 actually install neomutt 1.9.0

That was packager's decision, as the mutt package had many 3rd party patches for years, neomutt was just another one. Until recently, this was possible but after neomutt changed the build system, it's not a simple patch anymore. So the openSUSE mutt is going to be stuck with the current neomutt patch, or would have to become neomutt proper. And there *is* a proper neomutt package for openSUSE and Leap, maintained by me. Renaming current mutt+neomutt.patch to neomutt does not make any sense. Both projects can coexist on one system. Besides, upstream mutt heavily objects against branding distro versions of mutt+neomutt.patch as neomutt. Which is what you found and rightfully complain. IMO the right way to resolve this is to: * have a neomutt package tracking the neomutt project (done) * remove controversial 3rd party patches from mutt package, and possibly upstream all the patches (good luck with that...) The upstream mutt has come to life again after years, but most likely this is because of the neomutt fork. There are tensions between the project obviously, but users can choose what they prefer. And the distro should not add to the confusion. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

2159

Age (days ago)

2169

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

17 comments

7 participants

participants (7)

Daniel Morris
David Sterba
Lars Marowsky-Bree
Patrick Shanahan
Peter Suetterlin
Simon Lees
Stefan Seyfried

[opensuse-factory] mutt 1.9.1 reports itself as neomutt ???

tags

participants (7)