On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:17:09 -0600, Pete wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:36 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > Am Samstag, den 14.03.2009, 19:40 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt: > > > > > As I'd like to discontinue with packaging the Sylpheed E-Mail Client > > > > for Fedora, I've dropped ownership, so somebody else may take over. > > > > > > I use it and I need it for my LXDE Spin, so I'm going to co-maintain it > > > together with Itamar. > > > > Just out of interest - is there much reason to prefer Sylpheed over > > Claws any more? Is it lighter on resources, for e.g.? Just curious, > > really. Claws Mail's main pkg requires a few more libraries, most notably: libcurl libdb-4.7 libdbus-1, libdbus-glib-1 libetpan libexpat libgcrypt libgpg-error libpisock (Sylpheed could be built with basic pilot-link features, too) libsasl2 libstartup-notification GnuTLS instead of OpenSSL > I switched to Claws because I wanted Xft2, and went back to Sylpheed > just as soon as the mainline acquired Xft2. It crashes too much. > If I wanted another bloated MUA with unchecked hunger for features, > I would be using Evo. Somebody has been stubborn enough to convince me of switching from Sylpheed to Claws Mail for an extended evaluation period. So far I like it. I've been told it used to be quite unstable indeed when it was still called Sylpheed-claws, and as I remember, it has changed *a lot* since it had started as a fork and development version of Sylpheed. I hope all crashes you have run into have been reported in bugzilla. Sylpheed has not been crash-free and problem-free either. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
