[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention)
From: |
Karsten Hilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention) |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:05:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 08:42:07AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Let's look at mime_type2file_extension.conf ...
> >
> > Andreas, this file is there for a reason - it maps x-bmp to
> > .bmp which otherwise won't always work on Debian.
>
> So you try to fix a bug in mime-support by advising people to install
> gnumed-client???
No.
> And I'm actually not sure that your entry is correct
> because /etc/mime.types has
>
> image/x-ms-bmp bmp
How can the GNUmed entry not be correct ? That entry came
from *use* of the system. Some tool returned image/x-bmp as
the mime type of some file (which surely was a bitmap).
Debian couldn't handle that mime type (no matter whether
that's a purists-agreed-on mimetype or not - doctors were
unable to view a document). Hence GNUmed built in some
minimal support to help Debian do the right thing (by
providing a file extension and getting the viewer from the
mime system for that extension).
You don't think I'll write code when there is no need, do you ?
> Are you sure that you are using the right mimetype definition.
I am not using any definition. I am using what is given to
me by tools installed on a Debian system.
> And are you also sure that the way you are using this really works?
Since you don't so far seem to have understood how this is
supposed to work I doubt this question makes sense. Of
course does this work.
> I doubt that mime-support is seeking /etc/gnumed
Right, it neither needs to nor is supposed to.
> > There is one example right in the file.
>
> In how far is bmp GNUmed typical?
It has been typical enough for me to bother to write the
code. Since it now only happens fairly rarely I advised to
put the file into /usr/share/doc/gnumed/ to document what is
possible without forcing every user to have the file.
I don't get what's so problematic about this.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Naming convention (Was: Choice of programming language and project management), (continued)
- [Gnumed-devel] Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/07
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/08
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Andreas Tille, 2009/09/08
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Karsten Hilbert, 2009/09/08
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Andreas Tille, 2009/09/08
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Karsten Hilbert, 2009/09/08
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Andreas Tille, 2009/09/09
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention),
Karsten Hilbert <=
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Andreas Tille, 2009/09/09
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Karsten Hilbert, 2009/09/13
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/09
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/09
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/08
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Karsten Hilbert, 2009/09/08
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/09
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/08
- [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Andreas Tille, 2009/09/09
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: Re: Packaging (Was: Naming convention), Jim Busser, 2009/09/09