[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#681687: missing mime entry

Adam D. Barratt writes ("Bug#681687: missing mime entry"):
> If it's the solution that the TC decide on to resolve the issue, it
> sounds like something we could work with, at least imho, from what I've
> seen so far.  I've CCed -release for any further comments, as I don't
> know how many members of the team are following -ctte and/or this bug.

Right.  So far I think my personal view is that I'm happy for the
release team to carry on doing whatever they think is best, on this

> For clarity, the current proposal would be
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=35;filename=mime-support-desktop.patch;att=1;bug=497779 , or something similar?

I would be worried that this would make a widespread and radical
change to the behaviour of the mime-support-using packages.  Are we
sure that that's the right thing to do at this stage of the release ?

If we were wanting to do this properly, we would compare the
automatically-generated entires with the previous manually-written
ones, to see what behavioural changes we would expect.

> With my release hat on, it feels like "there's still a while until we
> release" is being used more often recently as a justification for trying
> to get larger scale changes incorporated or fixes delayed.  While I'm
> not implying that's the intention in this case, I do think we need to be
> wary of saying "there'll be plenty of time to fix that still".
> </soapbox>

I certainly don't think "we failed to get the automatic machinery
deployed and tested properly before the freeze" is a good excuse for
insisting on a freeze exception for it.

I can see why the evince maintainers are reluctant to keep on with an
approach they regard as obsolete and deprecated, but until the
replacement is properly deployed and tested that's what we should do.


Reply to: