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

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 6 Nov, 2016, at 12:20, Derek Schrock <dereks at 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
adamw at adamw.org
http://www.adamw.org