I can't make it :(

In D24541#544879, @cgiboudeaux wrote:

I can't test since I don't need these files.

The akonadi tests use different XDG_{CONFIG,DATA}_HOME values, do you see a difference before/after?

• replace /home/* with \${HOME}.

• Improve Apparmor profiles
• Make config possitive.

It took me a while to understand, what you want to solve. I also needed to read some documentation to those mail headers:

In D24035#539341, @gjditchfield wrote:

No, I don't have commit access, and given my likely commit rate and weak understanding of your work flow (should I wait for mlaurent?), I'm comfortable with that. Whatever keeps your workload lowest...

Btw I already accepted your patch, so feel free to push. Or don't you have commit access by now?

In D23908#536246, @dvratil wrote:

Did you test on both Neon and plain Debian?

• Add commindline option to disable AppArmor.
• Move Apparmor stuff into apparmor/CMakeLists.txt.

I've tested now mysql, postgresql and sqlite backend made sure everything starts/shutdown.

Add Apparmor profile for SQLite and PostgreSQL.
Make it installable as normal user

@gjditchfield okay my comments about friend1 vs friend2 were wrong - I overseen, that the mails were sent by friend1 to me. So the tests are fine.

I may have a venue at Waltershausen, but I have to ask how many people they can host.

In T8408#197809, @brenthuisman wrote:

Regarding the externality of the PGP client: a few tools I know use an internal (OpenPGP.js I am sure) library when set to Autocrypt mode. Enigmail as of version 2, when in the default easy mode, did not appear to store keys in the external client (when autocrypt is enabled) but somewhere internal (you can find openpgp.js in the Enigmail sources). The pEp mail client's the same, and a new Thunderbird client 'AutoCrypt' that does not offer a regular PGP mode also won't use any client you may have installed.

@aheinecke what is the state from gnupg? can this be merged now?

Overall the patch seems fine, but a unittest is missing. And it should surly be tested before we merge it into master, I can do this after the patch is rebased on master.

What is current state of this Review? It seems quite well crafted, so what holds us back from pushing?

fixing typos.

cleanup and split AppArmor profile.

Next step sending MemoryHole headers.

Okay with D23807 in repository, we now can display MemoryHole headers correctly.

In D23806#528596, @dvratil wrote:

I see. Please adjust the commit message as Roman suggested and ship it.

@vkrause: you requetsted changes to this patch, but don't left any comment? Please speak out, what you have in mind.

@cordlandwehr: we don't resolve the task for KF6 atm, to have an overview what has been done. Just move them to the Done column is the right thing to do. That is what we discussed about how to handle the Workboard.