From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Nov 6 19:24:59 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322ECC34822 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 19:24:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: from anoxia.adamw.org (anoxia.adamw.org [104.225.8.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "anoxia.adamw.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9352A5E; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 19:24:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: by anoxia.adamw.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id af398961 TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 12:24:51 -0700 (MST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\)) Subject: Re: mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme? From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: <20161106192007.GA71606@ircbsd.lifeofadishwasher.com> Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 12:24:49 -0700 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, adamw@FreeBSD.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20161102204551.jkismaljloqwlokp@box-hlm-03.niklaas.eu> <20161105111452.c76pnuvfloc56r54@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20161106192007.GA71606@ircbsd.lifeofadishwasher.com> To: Derek Schrock X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 19:24:59 -0000 > On 6 Nov, 2016, at 12:20, Derek Schrock = wrote: >=20 > 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, >>>=20 >>> 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: >>>=20 >>> Why is gpgme disabled by default? >>>=20 >>> 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? >>>=20 >>> I decided not to create a PR about this request. If that's wrong, >>> tell me and I'll create one. >>>=20 >>> Niklaas >>=20 >> Actually having tested it, yes you are right it is way more simple, I = have >> activated it in neomutt >>=20 >> Best regards, >> Bapt >=20 > 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? Done. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org