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

Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Dear Raphael,

thank you for your update on the status of this issue

> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:


> Please see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497779

OK thanks a lot for the link, now I understand very well what is
happening :-)

this bug is definetly linked to #497779... a bug started on 2008.09.04,
more than 3 years ago :-(

more than 3 years ago Josselin Mouette was tired:
"I’m tired of receiving bug reports asking to add a debian/mime file to
support an outdated MIME system that no application I know besides mutt
still uses."

and today we are in the very same situation, with people like me still
commeting on bugs Josselin Mouette is tired of receive

sure the solution should be to patch mime-support and close #497779 once
and forever, rumors says that all is needed is a one liner script
somewhere... so **what is the problem**??? :-)

but why drop mime-support usage from evince (and others packages)
**before** resolving #497779?
...because no one uses mutt or other programs that rely on mailcap?!?
...why just drop /etc/mailcap from Debian?

thanks to brian m. carlson it seems we now have a patch for
mime-support, a patch that "took less than an hour" as he said:

three years for a "less than an our" patch?!? (still to test and
deploy, obviously)

three years to discuss the new policy "let's drop update-mime
(and mailcap) support, who cares about an outdated MIME system"!?
Debian developers considers mailcap outdated?
you should write it down in some official document, like debian-policy

why can we just collaborate on issues instead of discuss on who is rigth
and who is wrong... for 3 years?!?

I think a more clear policy on multimedia handlers should be specified:
in particular *if* mailcap (and update-mime) have to be used in packages
like evince


Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera - IT infrastructures

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: