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

Re: Breaking programs because a not yet implemented solution exists in theory


On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:51:17AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
> ...

I confirm that I agree that we should prevent duplication of data which
was stated in previous mails.
> The main place that mailcap is richer than the desktop file that I can see
> is that mailcap allows you to express the exact command line (including
> putting %s at different places if needed) and lets you specify different
> commands for viewing, editing, and printing.  For example:
> message/rfc822; mutt -Rf '%s'; edit=mutt -f '%s'; needsterminal
> I don't know if there's any way to do that with desktop files.
> Also, I don't think there's a desktop equivalent of copiousoutput.

Assuming that Russ did not overlooked something this means that mailcap
entries can not generatet from desktop files.  So the one-liners
mentioned by Josselin which might solve 50% of the task could not easily
enhanced to two-liners doing 100% which do all the work.  In other words
we dropped support for a technique that is used by several programs and
it seems a replacement is either hard to do or not possible at all.

I personally would cope with this by installing a local package carrying
the mailcap entries I need.  However that can hardly be a solution for
our users.  As a general solution I would see two ways:

  1. Stop droping *.mime files from packages and reinjecting them.
  2. Create a general mailcap entry collection package which works
     around maintainers unwilling to support mailcap.

I'd prefer 1. because I see no point in just droping what worked in the
past and has no visible chance to break something heavily.  Please
correct me if I'm wrong.

Kind regards



Reply to: