Re: mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme?

[Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff via freebsd-ports]

Baptiste Daroussin [2016-11-05 12:14 +0100] :

> Actually having tested it, yes you are right it is way more simple, I have
> activated it in neomutt

Derek Schrock [2016-11-06 14:20 -0500] :

> 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.

Thanks a lot!

Niklaas
___
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"

Re: mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme?

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 6 Nov, 2016, at 12:20, Derek Schrock  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"

Re: mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme?

[Derek Schrock]

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?
___
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"

Re: mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

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


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

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.

For neomutt I haven't added gpgme as the default gpg setup works pretty fine
with gnupg2 and the gpg.rc I can be convinced that making gpgme the default is a
good idea, though I have never used gpgme

Best regards,
Bapt


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

mail/{neo,}mutt: why not packaged with gpgme?

[Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff via freebsd-ports]

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
___
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"