Re: [alpine-devel] considering packaging another mailx
On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:33:17 -0700
Isaac Dunham <ibid.ag_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that in the short term, heirloom-mailx would be
> a significant improvement over our current main/mailx.
> What I'd like to do is add testing/heirloom-mailx providing mailx;
> I have a preliminary aport without the provides part.
> In the future, upgrading to s-nail seems like a logical path; but
> I think that using s-nail now might be hasty.
The upstream tarball is named mailx so i think you can just call it
testing/mailx and we simply purge unmaintained/mailx.
Thank you very much for following this up!
Received on Mon Sep 15 2014 - 10:46:43 UTC