Web lists-archives.com

Re: no{thing} build profiles

>>>>> Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:45:26PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 23, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@xxxxxx> wrote:

 >>> Wouldn’t it make more sense for mutt to just go «oh, no GPG
 >>> installed, let’s note that there are signatures here, but they
 >>> can’t be verified, since there’s no GPG installed on the system»
 >>> and let the user know that?  No need to actually disable PGP
 >>> support.

 >> Yes. Because this way the default configuration will be useful both
 >> before and after gnupg will have been installed.

 > That is sort-of what is happening for neomutt (20171215+dfsg.1-1) at
 > least, it reports

 >    sh: 1: gpg: not found

 > There’s room for improvement there.  mutt (1.9.2-1) is worse

 >    Error: verification failed: Unsupported protocol

 > both with the default configurations.

	What are the values of the crypt_use_gpgme setting in each case?
	Could it be that mutt and neomutt actually have different defaults
	(one using gpg(1) directly and the other using GPGME) here?

FSF associate member #7257  http://am-1.org/~ivan/