Bug 92329 – Optional PATCH: sylpheed-claws-1.9.9 - Remove the "New" folder view column

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED UPSTREAM

[Description Anthony Gorecki 2005-05-11 21:48:08 UTC]

I've recently migrated over to Sylpheed-Claws, however I've been dissatisfied with the amount of horizontal width that the folder view pane requires due to the "New" message count column. As I've only ever needed to know the number of unread messages, I've created a patch to remove the "New" column from the interface.

This is patched and tested to be working against sylpheed-claws-1.9.9, using the contributed ebuild from bug #87342 that's dated 2005-05-09 16:28. 

Perhaps this could be added as a USE option to the sylpheed-claws ebuild? Due to the internal structure of that part of the user interface, there is presently no way to alter the folder view's columns without recompiling the program.

[Comment 1 Anthony Gorecki 2005-05-11 21:48:44 UTC]

Created attachment 58726 [details]
sylpheed_claws-1.9.9-no_new_messages_count_in_folder_view.patch

[Comment 2 Anthony Gorecki 2005-05-11 21:50:50 UTC]

Regarding the lines that seem to have been removed only to be added again, this appears to be VIM clearing out the extraneous trailing whitespace in the file.

[Comment 3 Marius Mauch (RETIRED) 2005-05-15 13:40:01 UTC]

Did you send it upstream?

[Comment 4 Anthony Gorecki 2005-05-26 19:03:39 UTC]

Something apparently changed between my overlaid ebuild and the
sylpheed-claws-1.9.9 ebuild in Portage which caused the patch to fail when I
synced the ebuilds this afternoon to remerge the package. I don't know what the
reason was for that failure, but since a new version of the program is
available, I decided to simply reconstruct the patch against the latest version
of the software.

I'll send the new patch upstream. Below is a patch against the latest
development version, 1.9.11:

[Comment 5 Anthony Gorecki 2005-05-26 19:04:31 UTC]

Created attachment 59912 [details, diff]
sylpheed-claws-1.9.11-no_new_messages_count_in_folder_view.patch

[Comment 6 Anthony Gorecki 2005-05-26 19:31:04 UTC]

Do you want more of these patches, or would you prefer me to bypass posting them
here in favor of just sending them upstream?

[Comment 7 Marius Mauch (RETIRED) 2005-06-16 04:39:59 UTC]

I'm not much for adding feature enhancement patches to ebuilds especially if
they change normal behavior, can only be changed at buildtime and aren't
reviewed by upstream. Hint: it's always a good idea to clean patches up, there
is a lot of redundant stuff in your patch (probably whitespace changes).