Bug 233933 – Suggestion for fdo-mime.eclass

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED LATER

[Description Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2008-08-05 05:02:04 UTC]

Hi,
I propose this wrapper function. Patch will be attached in a sec.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Jeremy

[Comment 1 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2008-08-05 05:02:45 UTC]

Created attachment 162240 [details, diff]
patch applies to fdo-mime.eclass

[Comment 2 Rémi Cardona (RETIRED) 2008-08-05 09:41:13 UTC]

1) s/fso_/fdo_/
2) s/fdo_update/fdo_mime_update/ ?

But the idea is nice :)

[Comment 3 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2008-08-05 15:48:10 UTC]

(In reply to comment #2)
> 1) s/fso_/fdo_/
> 2) s/fdo_update/fdo_mime_update/ ?
> 
> But the idea is nice :)
> 

Yea, fat fingers ftw! ;)

I don't have a preference for the name of the function. Can I give it a week here waiting for future comments, if none then apply above changes and commit?

[Comment 4 Mart Raudsepp 2008-08-12 23:53:40 UTC]

What is the purpose of this?
To be called when MIME handlers are added together with a desktop file that declares a handler for it, or what?
Please at the very least describe when to use it. I don't want to see packages starting to call this out of lazyness (being able to just always call this instead of desktop database update separately) when they install only a desktop icon.
I'm not really sure I support this wrapper at its current existing justification (as far I can see on this bug)

[Comment 5 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2008-08-13 00:43:53 UTC]

(In reply to comment #4)
> What is the purpose of this?
> To be called when MIME handlers are added together with a desktop file that
> declares a handler for it, or what?
> Please at the very least describe when to use it. I don't want to see packages
> starting to call this out of lazyness (being able to just always call this
> instead of desktop database update separately) when they install only a desktop
> icon.
> I'm not really sure I support this wrapper at its current existing
> justification (as far I can see on this bug)

I do not claim to be very knowledgeable about mime stuff. But, I have seen at least a few ebuilds call both these functions in a row. Even gnome2.eclass calls both in a row. So..wouldn't it make a small amount of sense to make ebuild/eclass writing even easier?

[Comment 6 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2008-10-14 14:33:49 UTC]

ok, maybe later then.

[Comment 7 Mart Raudsepp 2008-10-14 23:55:23 UTC]

RESOLVED LATER for us is as good as WONTFIX for us. It's extremely unlikely we'll look at this again unless someone else reopens it ;)

So if there's still discussion and justification or consideration to be had, it better stay open imho