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

Re: Bug#681687: missing mime entry

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:58:37AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 01:51:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Broadly speaking, I think the correct long-term solution is to first add
> > support to update-mime for reading both .desktop files and mime files, and
> > then to update policy to tell maintainers to use .desktop files instead of
> > mime files.  And I think it's better for Debian if we can get the first part
> > done prior to the wheezy release.  But I would like the release team to make
> > their own determination of whether the patch that's currently up for
> > consideration is of sufficient quality, and sufficiently safe, to be granted
> > a freeze exception.
> > 
> I completely agree with getting rid of the manual mime entries where
> they can be automatically generated. I have concerns that the .desktop
> format means that it won't work for some packages, but those could
> always carry manual entires.
> However, I really do think that pushing in a system wide change at this
> stage in the release is not desireable at all, so woudn't be happy to
> see it in Wheezy. If we wanted to do this, it should have been started
> about two years ago.

So I think there are 3 options for wheezy:
1) Have update-mime read the .desktop file, but don't update
   any packages to replace mime files with .desktop files.
2) Change all mime files to .desktop files (where possible), and
   have update-mime read the .desktop file.
3) Don't change update-mime to read the .desktop file, have
   packages ship both .desktop and mime files, re-adding mime
   files where needed.

There are probably other options, but I don't think we want
those for wheezy.

It's my understanding that Steve suggested option 1), but I have
the feeling you're saying 2) is what we want in the long run
but not for wheezy.


Reply to: