On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 06:11:34PM -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> W. Trevor King writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 01:39:21PM -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> >> For me it's a bit odd to have a man page for a tool we don't
> >> install by default. Is it maybe time to "promote" nmbug-status to
> >> the notmuch- namespace and install it by default?
> >
> > Sounds good to me.  And Gentoo has installed it (if you've set the
> > ‘nmbug’ USE flag [1]) since 0.11.1-r1, 2012-02-21 [2].  I'm not
> > sure what the new names should be.  nmbug → notmuch-dtag (for
> > distributed tag) and nmbug-status → notmuch-report?
>
> I'm not sure we need to deal with both tools in lockstep. It's not
> like there's an actual dependence of nmbug-status on nmbug.

Agreed.  I think they're both pretty useful though, and I don't see a
point to *not* promoting one to “easy to install with an appropriately
generic name”.  However, I'm fine promoting the tools in two separate
patch series if that would be easier to review.

> Yes, these things are easy to solve in most packaging systems, but
> we want notmuch to be installable from source as well.

So separate --without-… configure flags for each script, which will
also control the associated man pages and handle runtime-dependency
warnings/errors?

Looking over our current configure, I see we have a --without-ruby,
but no --without-python.  I may file a separate patch adding that, so
folks with Python installed can still opt-out of notmuch's Python
bindings.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy