Mike Erdely [2007-07-25, 12:43:05]: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:39:00PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > Having read steven's post, I think he has a valid point though. > > How about rolling the two FLAVORs into 'with_patches' if it's > > desirable to reduce the number of FLAVORs? > > Or go the other way. Maybe the default "FLAVOR" have the patches and > create a "nothing_added" FLAVOR for those purists.
this makes no sense to me, unflavored mutt should not contain all kinds of patch sets, imho. if you need the extra stuff in mutt, install a flavored package. if the flavors are removed and someone wants to work on updating mutt to a future version, the first thing they have to do is make sure the patch sets apply to the new mutt version... so it would not really be handy for testing, either. i don't see how these flavors hurt anyone.
