On 01.02.2012 16:03, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:51:17AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> 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. Tools like mutt, which need the extended mailcap syntax, can certainly continue to ship a mime file. If a package ships both a desktop and a mime file, the conversion-tool could simply skip the automatic generation of the mailcap entries under the assumption that the manually written ones take precedence. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature