Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:20:07 -0500
From: Derek Schrock <dereks@lifeofadishwasher.com>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Cc: adamw@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme?
Message-ID: <20161106192007.GA71606@ircbsd.lifeofadishwasher.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161105111452.c76pnuvfloc56r54@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
References: <20161102204551.jkismaljloqwlokp@box-hlm-03.niklaas.eu> <20161105111452.c76pnuvfloc56r54@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 07:14:52AM EDT, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:45:51PM +0100, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > While talking about an issue I have with mail/{neo,}mutt and
> > security/gnupg on #gnupg on freenode I was advised to use
> > security/gpgme with mutt. I haven't been using gpgme for a while,
> > mainly because the packaged versions of both mail/{neo,}mutt have
> > it disabled and I was too lazy to compile it on my own. Since
> > I got that advice, I've started wondering:
> >
> > Why is gpgme disabled by default?
> >
> > As was argued (and as I experienced myself) setting up mutt to
> > work with gpgme is much easier than without. Especially gnupg2
> > made it difficult to configure mutt without gpgme. So why not
> > enabling gpgme in the packaged versions?
> >
> > I decided not to create a PR about this request. If that's wrong,
> > tell me and I'll create one.
> >
> > Niklaas
>
> Actually having tested it, yes you are right it is way more simple, I have
> activated it in neomutt
>
> Best regards,
> Bapt
I can't find any reason why it was off in mail/mutt, maybe because it
was always off since 2006. However, since this appears to be a
non-disruptive change, excluding some extra packages being installed, I
think it should be turned on for mail/mutt as well. Can this be updated
without a PR/patch?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161106192007.GA71606>