> On 6 Nov, 2016, at 12:20, Derek Schrock <der...@lifeofadishwasher.com> wrote: > > 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?
Done. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"