Hi, On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:45:42PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > If a missing mime file would mean an RC bug, this would instantly make > 514 packages RC buggy. > Interestingly, the particular section in the Debian policy is a should > directive, not a must, so I don't understand the reasons for making > #658139 RC. >
For info, I do not consider all packages missing a mime file to be RC buggy. I consider #658139 RC. > Creating and keeping those mime files up-to-date is probably okay if you > maintain a single package or you need some of the special features that > mime-support provides. It adds up though, if you maintain multiple > packages. As maintainers time is limited and valuable I'd rather see it > spent for really important issues and simply get the patch in [1] > applied to mime-support which auto-generates those mime entries for > legacy apps which don't yet support the xdg mime spec [2]. > As I understand it, there are still a number of issues with this approach (.desktop files do not contain enough information to get argument ordering correct in all cases, and it's far too late to start using a new auto-generation system this late in the cycle). I also disagree that http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=%23658139#29 is justification for this bug. There is a two line patch that reintroduces this file, and will not cause issues for the eventual solution (when it finally exists) that the maintainer prefers. Deliberately breaking functionality because the maintainer a) doesn't agree with policy and/or wants to use the package as a stick for others to do work does not to me seem to be the correct action to take. Neil --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
