sidebar patch

[Kevin Tappe]

It would be nice if the mutt sidebar patch (http://thomer.com/mutt/) could be
applied to the standard mutt package. Unfortunately it conflicts with three or
four patches that are already included in Ubuntu's mutt package.
-Kevin

[Marco d'Itri (md)]

tag 277637 wontfix
thanks

On Oct 21, Jean-Michel Kelbert <email address hidden> wrote:

> Could you please the patch you'll be able to find here :
No, because it's way too big and invasive and the debian package is
already overpatched.

--
ciao, |
Marco | [8679 abEMSfo1uh6dU]

[Kevin Tappe (kevintappe-deactivatedaccount)]

It would be nice if the mutt sidebar patch (http://thomer.com/mutt/) could be
applied to the standard mutt package. Unfortunately it conflicts with three or
four patches that are already included in Ubuntu's mutt package.
-Kevin

[Chuck Short (zulcss)]

That looks pretty cool since Im a mutt user. Ill try to get the patch working
with ubuntu's patchset.

[Ryszard Lach (rla)]

Oh, it's a pity. Efficient browsing of folders is the only feature that
I miss in Mutt, this patch greatly improves managing of e-mail accounts
with huge amounts of mails (organized in many folders) making mutt more
and more suitable for such accounts. It seems also that upstream of this
patch is quite active, besides this sidebar can be switched off for
those, who don't like it, so... maybe you consider once more adding this
patch?

R.

[Dennis Kaarsemaker (dennis)]

The current Dapper package does not yet contain this patch. Are you still
planning on trying it or has ot failed?

[Chuck Short (zulcss)]

no i have moved on to other things

[Match (xhosa)]

Just had a very quick play with this...

Took mutt source and ubuntu's diff.gz from packages.ubuntu.com (Dapper version) for 1.5.11
Took sidebar patch from http://thomer.com/mutt/patch-1.5.11.sidebar.20060127.txt

Unpacked all sources and diff, applied ubuntu diff to source, applied sidebar patch to source (with minor modification - removed references to -orig and -latest in patch file to save on typing)

./configure && make && make install

No errors on compile/install

Added following to .muttrc

# set up the sidebar, default not visible
# The width of the mailbox list pane (left sidebar like in GUIs).
   set sidebar_width=12
# This specifies whether or not to show the mailbox list panel.
  set sidebar_visible=no
# which mailboxes to list in the sidebar
  mailboxes ~/.mail
# color of folders with new mail
  color sidebar_new yellow default
# ctrl-n, ctrl-p to select next, prev folder ctrl-o to open selected folder
  bind index \CP sidebar-prev
  bind index \CN sidebar-next
  bind index \CO sidebar-open
  bind pager \CP sidebar-prev
  bind pager \CN sidebar-next
  bind pager \CO sidebar-open

# Ctrl-b toggles sidebar visibility
  macro index \Cb ':toggle sidebar_visible^M'
  macro pager \Cb ':toggle sidebar_visible^M'

All appears to be working as expected, with sidebar patch also working. Could this please be tried again by someone who's actively working on the package? It was a 5 minute job and would be a good addition to mutt.

[Match (xhosa)]

Minor modification - changed relative path from mutt-1.5.11-orig/ to mutt-1.5.11/

For applying against mutt-1.5.11-orig/upstream/tarballs/mutt-1.5.11.tar.gz source package

[Christoph Berg (myon)]

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21
forcemerge 277637 354320

[dann frazier (dannf)]

hey Christoph,
 I noticed here that you were looking for an updated version of the
sidebar patch:
  http://marc.info/?l=mutt-dev&m=117475859101336&w=2

Since mutt-ng is dead, I decided to switch back to mutt and have
ported the 1.5.15 sidebar patch from Terry P. Chan to the version of
mutt in experimental.

Though its been working for me for the past, oh, 12 hours - I make no
claim that its perfect :)

diff -urpN mutt-1.5.15+20070515.orig/Makefile.am mutt-1.5.15+20070515/Makefile.am
--- mutt-1.5.15+20070515.orig/Makefile.am 2007-06-04 23:45:16.000000000 -0600
+++ mutt-1.5.15+20070515/Makefile.am 2007-06-04 23:54:09.000000000 -0600
@@ -29,7 +29,8 @@ mutt_SOURCES = $(BUILT_SOURCES) \
  score.c send.c sendlib.c signal.c sort.c \
  status.c system.c thread.c charset.c history.c lib.c \
  muttlib.c editmsg.c mbyte.c \
- url.c ascii.c mutt_idna.c crypt-mod.c crypt-mod.h
+ url.c ascii.c mutt_idna.c crypt-mod.c crypt-mod.h \
+ sidebar.c

 mutt_LDADD = @MUTT_LIB_OBJECTS@ @LIBOBJS@ $(LIBIMAP) $(MUTTLIBS) \
  $(INTLLIBS) $(LIBICONV) $(GPGME_LIBS)
diff -urpN mutt-1.5.15+20070515.orig/Makefile.in mutt-1.5.15+20070515/Makefile.in
--- mutt-1.5.15+20070515.orig/Makefile.in 2007-06-04 23:45:17.000000000 -0600
+++ mutt-1.5.15+20070515/Makefile.in 2007-06-04 23:54:09.000000000 -0600
@@ -91,7 +91,8 @@ am_mutt_OBJECTS = $(am__objects_1) addrb
  thread.$(OBJEXT) charset.$(OBJEXT) history.$(OBJEXT) \
  lib.$(OBJEXT) muttlib.$(OBJEXT) editmsg.$(OBJEXT) \
  mbyte.$(OBJEXT) url.$(OBJEXT) ascii.$(OBJEXT) \
- mutt_idna.$(OBJEXT) crypt-mod.$(OBJEXT)
+ mutt_idna.$(OBJEXT) crypt-mod.$(OBJEXT) \
+ sidebar.$(OBJEXT)
 mutt_OBJECTS = $(am_mutt_OBJECTS)
 am__DEPENDENCIES_1 =
 am_mutt_dotlock_OBJECTS = mutt_dotlock.$(OBJEXT)
@@ -312,7 +313,8 @@ mutt_SOURCES = $(BUILT_SOURCES) \
  score.c send.c sendlib.c signal.c sort.c \
  status.c system.c thread.c charset.c history.c lib.c \
  muttlib.c editmsg.c mbyte.c \
- url.c ascii.c mutt_idna.c crypt-mod.c crypt-mod.h
+ url.c ascii.c mutt_idna.c crypt-mod.c crypt-mod.h \
+ sidebar.c

 mutt_LDADD = @MUTT_LIB_OBJECTS@ @LIBOBJS@ $(LIBIMAP) $(MUTTLIBS) \
  $(INTLLIBS) $(LIBICONV) $(GPGME_LIBS)
@@ -346,7 +348,7 @@ EXTRA_DIST = COPYRIGHT GPL OPS OPS.PGP O
  makedoc.c makedoc-defs.h stamp-doc-rc README.SSL smime.h \
  muttbug pgppacket.h depcomp ascii.h BEWARE PATCHES patchlist.sh \
  ChangeLog ChangeLog.old mkchangelog.sh cvslog2changelog.pl mutt_idna.h \
- snprintf.c regex.c crypt-gpgme.h hcachever.sh
+ snprintf.c regex.c crypt-gpgme.h sidebar.h hcachever.sh

 EXTRA_SCRIPTS = smime_keys
 mutt_dotlock_SOURCES = mutt_dotlock.c
diff -urpN mutt-1.5.15+20070515.orig/Muttrc mutt-1.5.15+20070515/Muttrc
--- mutt-1.5.15+20070515.orig/Muttrc 2007-05-17 06:47:29.000000000 -0600
+++ mutt-1.5.15+20070515/Muttrc 2007-06-04 23:54:09.000000000 -0600
@@ -2037,6 +2037,26 @@ attachments -I message/external-body
 # function.
 #
 #
+# set sidebar_visible=no
+#
+# Name: sidebar_visible
+# Type: boolean
+# Default: no
+#
+#
+# This specifies whether or not to show sidebar (left-side list of folders).
+#
+#
+# set sidebar_width=0
+#
+# Name: sidebar_width
+# Type: number
+# Default: 0
+#
+#
+# The width of the sidebar.
+#
+#
 #...

[dann frazier (dannf)]

Ported to sid's 1.5.16

--
dann frazier

[Michael Prokop (unactivated-mika)]

What's the current state of inclusion of the sidebar patch¹ into the
debian package of mutt (or maybe even upstream)?

There are several people out there asking for it. Would be really
great if that patch could become part of mutt, or at least part of
Debian's mutt package.

¹ http://www.lunar-linux.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44

thx && regards,
-mika-

[Christoph Berg (myon)]

Re: Michael Prokop 2007-07-19 <email address hidden>
> What's the current state of inclusion of the sidebar patch¹ into the
> debian package of mutt (or maybe even upstream)?
>
> There are several people out there asking for it. Would be really
> great if that patch could become part of mutt, or at least part of
> Debian's mutt package.

I doubt it will go upstream in the near future, and I think Dato and I
agree that it would be inappropriate to plug it into the Debian
package now.

What we will probably do is to build a second binary (package) that
includes the sidebar patch. (I pondered building a "mutt-ng" binary
for that purpose, but mutt-ng is more than just mutt + sidebar.)

Christoph
--

[Dato Simó (dato)]

* Christoph Berg [Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:22:39 +0200]:

> * Michael Prokop [Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:13:30 +0200]:

> > What's the current state of inclusion of the sidebar patch¹ into the
> > debian package of mutt (or maybe even upstream)?

> > There are several people out there asking for it. Would be really
> > great if that patch could become part of mutt, or at least part of
> > Debian's mutt package.

> I doubt it will go upstream in the near future, and I think Dato and I
> agree that it would be inappropriate to plug it into the Debian
> package now.

> What we will probably do is to build a second binary (package) that
> includes the sidebar patch. (I pondered building a "mutt-ng" binary
> for that purpose, but mutt-ng is more than just mutt + sidebar.)

I'd like mutt-patched or similar. I'm still not sure whether building it
from the same source package is a wise idea, though. What could work is
building if from the same source, but in experimental only. Somebody
(somebody being me, Christoph, or much preferably some intersted party)
would have to take care of merging unstable back to experimental after
each upload.

Yeah, I think I like that, at least as a start to see how it works out.
I can write the infraestructure to build the two packages from the same
source, so that the resulting job is a matter of grabbing the package
from unstable, comment out a flag in debian/rules or similar, and adjust
the conflicts if any, and/or upload the experimental patches with a new
version. When there are none, upload, or ping us for an upload if
they're not a DD.

Any takers?

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

A dream is an answer to a question that we don't know how to ask.

[dann frazier (dannf)]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:57:04AM +0200, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> I'd like mutt-patched or similar. I'm still not sure whether building it
> from the same source package is a wise idea, though. What could work is
> building if from the same source, but in experimental only. Somebody
> (somebody being me, Christoph, or much preferably some intersted party)
> would have to take care of merging unstable back to experimental after
> each upload.

I already do this for the sidebar patch anyway, so I don't mind doing
an upload to experimental with it. I assume there are other features
people would like to get in besides sidebar, so I suggest we setup a
set of policies for working together. Here's a couple to give an idea
of what I'm thinking...

Patch Owners
------------
 At least one owner exists for each patch. This maintainer is
 responsible for porting (or working with their upstreams to port)
 patches to new releases.

Regressions Permitted
---------------------
 Uploads to experimental should occur at most 1 week after a new
 version enters unstable. If a patch requires port work and the
 patch maintainer does not complete this work within the week, that
 patch will be dropped. This patch can of course be reapplied in a
 future upload once the porting work is complete.
 Exceptions are of course permitted - if a patch maintainer needs a
 few extra days, they may request a delay of the upload, if there's a
 critical fix (e.g., security vulnerability), an upload may occur
 immediately omitting features that have to be ported.

Also, it'd be good to have a place to coordinate these uploads. If
there's no pre-existing forums, I'd suggest either a lists.debian.net
list or to simply open a wishlist bug with every unstable release
requesting a new mutt-patched upload and work through the issues
there.

> Yeah, I think I like that, at least as a start to see how it works out.
> I can write the infraestructure to build the two packages from the same
> source, so that the resulting job is a matter of grabbing the package
> from unstable, comment out a flag in debian/rules or similar, and adjust
> the conflicts if any, and/or upload the experimental patches with a new
> version. When there are none, upload, or ping us for an upload if
> they're not a DD.
>
> Any takers?

That sounds good, thanks Adeodato.

--
dann frazier

[Christoph Berg (myon)]

Re: dann frazier 2007-07-24 <email address hidden>
> I already do this for the sidebar patch anyway, so I don't mind doing
> an upload to experimental with it. I assume there are other features
> people would like to get in besides sidebar, so I suggest we setup a
> set of policies for working together. Here's a couple to give an idea
> of what I'm thinking...

I not really aware of any other patch (besides sidebar) that people
want and that is at the same time rejected upstream (or not already in
the Debian package). I'd go with a mutt-sidebar package built from the
same source. Of course building twice is somewhat scary, but it should
definitely come from the same source, or else would result in lots of
duplicated work. Along the same line, we should go for unstable, as
experimental isn't really widely used, and the point of the new
package is to be used, rather than tested.

Christoph
--

[dann frazier (dannf)]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:50:12PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: dann frazier 2007-07-24 <email address hidden>
> > I already do this for the sidebar patch anyway, so I don't mind doing
> > an upload to experimental with it. I assume there are other features
> > people would like to get in besides sidebar, so I suggest we setup a
> > set of policies for working together. Here's a couple to give an idea
> > of what I'm thinking...
>
> I not really aware of any other patch (besides sidebar) that people
> want and that is at the same time rejected upstream (or not already in
> the Debian package). I'd go with a mutt-sidebar package built from the
> same source. Of course building twice is somewhat scary, but it should
> definitely come from the same source, or else would result in lots of
> duplicated work. Along the same line, we should go for unstable, as
> experimental isn't really widely used, and the point of the new
> package is to be used, rather than tested.

That's of course fine with me as well, though it does mean a higher
level of support and for a longer period of time. Another option is to
make it a separate source package in sid so that RC bugs in sidebar do
not affect the overall releasability of mutt - I know of no such issues
currently, but there's always a possibility.

--
dann frazier

[Dato Simó (dato)]

* Christoph Berg [Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:50:12 +0200]:

> Along the same line, we should go for unstable,

No, I really want experimental first, and re-evaluate after some months
there.

> as experimental isn't really widely used, and the point of the new
> package is to be used, rather than tested.

Since the patches will be in a separate binary package, interested
parties will have to explicitly select it (i.e., it won't appear in
their systems with a regular update); given that, it won't make much
difference from which distribution to install the package from.

Cheers,

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look
like a nail.

[Christoph Berg (myon)]

Re: Adeodato Simó 2007-07-25 <email address hidden>
> * Christoph Berg [Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:50:12 +0200]:
>
> > Along the same line, we should go for unstable,
>
> No, I really want experimental first, and re-evaluate after some months
> there.

I meant long-term of course, initially trying experimental is fine. (I
was pondering frequent snapshot uploads to experimental anyway, and
more or less only hitting unstable on upstream releases.)

Christoph
--

[Dato Simó (dato)]

* Christoph Berg [Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:49:58 +0200]:

> Re: Adeodato Simó 2007-07-25 <email address hidden>
> > * Christoph Berg [Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:50:12 +0200]:

> > > Along the same line, we should go for unstable,

> > No, I really want experimental first, and re-evaluate after some months
> > there.

> I meant long-term of course, initially trying experimental is fine.

Ah, right.

> (I was pondering frequent snapshot uploads to experimental anyway, and
> more or less only hitting unstable on upstream releases.)

On the other hand, I think unstable is appropriate for such uploads,
particularly because upstream is now heading towards 1.6 so most updates
are bugfixes, plus that's really the stuff that benefits from having
much users testing it, which experimental does not give you (for already
existing packages).

Cheers,

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty,
and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life -- so I became a
scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.
                -- Matt Cartmill

[Michelle Konzack (linux4michelle)]

Hello *,

Am 2007-07-24 23:50:12, schrieb Christoph Berg:
> I not really aware of any other patch (besides sidebar) that people
> want and that is at the same time rejected upstream (or not already in
> the Debian package). I'd go with a mutt-sidebar package built from the

I have tried mutt-ng but since I use courier-imap only, it was crashing
all the time while opening huge Mailboxes with over 3000 messages.

Because this I realy like a mutt version which includes the "sidebar"
only beside Upstream approved patches.

OK, I have already applied (for more then one year) the sidebar patch
my own, but I was not realy satisfait because there where problems
while using IMAP. Maybe this have changed now.

> same source. Of course building twice is somewhat scary, but it should
> definitely come from the same source, or else would result in lots of
> duplicated work. Along the same line, we should go for unstable, as
> experimental isn't really widely used, and the point of the new
> package is to be used, rather than tested.

ACK.

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
    Michelle Konzack
    Systemadministrator
    Tamay Dogan Network
    Debian GNU/Linux Consultant

--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
                   50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

[dann frazier (dannf)]

Attached. Has there been anymore thought about doing a mutt-sidebar
package?

--
dann frazier

[Christoph Berg (myon)]

Re: dann frazier 2007-11-20 <email address hidden>
> Attached.

Thanks.

> Has there been anymore thought about doing a mutt-sidebar package?

I tried but ran into the following problem:

The workflow

patch (without sidebar)
configure
build-mutt
add sidebar patch
build-mutt-patched
binary-mutt
binary-mutt-patched

doesn't work because the first binary-* target will trigger a
recompile on "make install (even for out-of-tree configure). OTOH,
with

...
build-mutt
binary-mutt
add sidebar patch
build-mutt-patched
binary-mutt-patched

the root/non-root parts don't work (build vs. binary targets).

Any ideas on how to sanely build two packages from the same source?

Christoph
--
<email address hidden> | http://www.df7cb.de/

[Anibal Monsalve Salazar (anibal)]

# the following bugs are closed by packages in NEW
#
tags 277637 pending
tags 426148 pending
tags 426158 pending
tags 429274 pending
tags 430797 pending
tags 430810 pending
tags 431013 pending
tags 436228 pending
tags 439305 pending
tags 446016 pending
tags 448728 pending
tags 452140 pending
tags 452145 pending
tags 452146 pending
tags 452147 pending
tags 452148 pending
tags 452149 pending
tags 452150 pending
tags 452151 pending
tags 457481 pending
thanks

Anibal Monsalve Salazar
--
http://v7w.com/anibal

[Christoph Berg (myon)]

Source: mutt
Source-Version: 1.5.17-2

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
mutt, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

mutt-dbg_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb
  to pool/main/m/mutt/mutt-dbg_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb
mutt-patched_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb
  to pool/main/m/mutt/mutt-patched_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb
mutt_1.5.17-2.diff.gz
  to pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.5.17-2.diff.gz
mutt_1.5.17-2.dsc
  to pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.5.17-2.dsc
mutt_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb
  to pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to <email address hidden>,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Christoph Berg <email address hidden> (supplier of updated mutt package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing <email address hidden>)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:00:33 +0100
Source: mutt
Binary: mutt mutt-dbg mutt-patched
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 1.5.17-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Adeodato Simó <email address hidden>
Changed-By: Christoph Berg <email address hidden>
Description:
 mutt - text-based mailreader supporting MIME, GPG, PGP and threading
 mutt-dbg - debugging symbols for mutt
 mutt-patched - the Mutt Mail User Agent with extra patches
Closes: 277637 426148 426158 436228 446016 448728
Changes:
 mutt (1.5.17-2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Build a mutt-patched package to apply the sidebar patch. Thanks to Dato
     who had the right idea for the necessary debian/rules magic during the
     recent debian-qa meeting in Extremadura. (Closes: #277637)
   * Build a mutt-dbg package, and bump DH level to 5.
   * Grab current hg tip from upstream.
     + Fixes "mailto:" URL parsing.
       (Closes: #426148, #426158, #446016, Mutt: #2968, #2980)
     + 'set folder= =' won't segfault. (Closes: #448728)
     + Improve DSN docs. (Closes: #436228)
   * Bump Standards-Version, add Homepage field.
Files:
 1bded6107213c3c252d2439b81164f8b 892 mail standard mutt_1.5.17-2.dsc
 0460a41e697a38015924ca92479e0bb9 151997 mail standard mutt_1.5.17-2.diff.gz
 8e7399f0423e224b2ce324e95860a0f8 1963130 mail standard mutt_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb
 3ff7270a81309b2a4eb56e0fe6420de9 383916 mail extra mutt-patched_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb
 62dc5f56c82b353ed936ba4ee6f189e0 1317402 mail extra mutt-dbg_1.5.17-2_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHepCOxa93SlhRC1oRApMEAKDG1b+VEW3PYrkvhom8lMJ5NsKg+QCfUnMm
2mXzzPbcdTi1alB8UJ9rcKY=
=fSEu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Wouter Stomp (wouterstomp-deactivatedaccount)]

This is fixed in debian in 1.5.17-2, ubuntu still has 1.5.17-1.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

Wouter, thanks for the hint. I synced the new version into Hardy.

[Debbugs Internal Request (owner-bugs)]

# A New Hope
# A log time ago, in a galaxy far, far away
# something happened.
#
# Magically this resulted in the following
# action being taken, but this fake control
# message doesn't tell you why it happened
#
# The action:
# Bug archived.
thanks
# This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs
# administrator