Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Giovanni Biscuolo-3
hi all,

i'm having the same problem described on 31 Jan 2012 by Andreas Tille:
see, mutt and all other programs depending on mailcap are not able to
open PDF files with **evince**

please see Debian policy 9.7 about multimedia handlers:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-mime

please also consider that /etc/mailcap is a standard since a long ago
and that all users of "console based" applications in Debian are
expecting that /etc/mailcap is updated automatically by installed
applications

this problem is strictly related to evince, **not** general, so please
reassign this bug to evince package

a simple workaround is to install one of the other available PDF viewers
fully compliant with the update-mime policy, I'm using epdfview

about alternative solutions proposed, on 2012.01.31  Michael Biebl
<[hidden email]> said:
...........
This topic has been discussed several times already. Instead of
maintaining these files by hand (remember, we do have quite a few in the
GNOME repo), those mailcap entries should be generated automatically
from the *.desktop files that are provided upstream and already contain
all the necessary information.
We don't want to maintain a second mime database by hand in parallel.
............

so the proposed solution is that *users* will maintain mime-support
database by hand?

if this topic has been discussed several times why the Debian policy 9.7
still mandates support for update-mime?

the idea not to maintain 2 files containing the same information is
interesting and should be done with proper tools on maintainers side,
not on users side... or by standard tools such those found in
mime-support

if there is enough consensus to drop (or extend) Debian policy 9.7 in
favour of a new one using *.desktop files to register mime-types
(dropping /usr/lib/mime/packages/ files and mime-suport) I'm willing to
help to develop a new tool

all this work should lead to a new written policy *and* related tools
similar to mime-support

meanwhile could you please roll back to /usr/lib/mime/packages/evince?

thanks
Ciao
Giovanni

--
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera - IT infrastructures
http://xelera.eu/contact-us/

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Raphael Hertzog-3
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
> so the proposed solution is that *users* will maintain mime-support
> database by hand?

No.

> the idea not to maintain 2 files containing the same information is
> interesting and should be done with proper tools on maintainers side,
> not on users side... or by standard tools such those found in
> mime-support

Yes.

> if there is enough consensus to drop (or extend) Debian policy 9.7 in
> favour of a new one using *.desktop files to register mime-types
> (dropping /usr/lib/mime/packages/ files and mime-suport) I'm willing to
> help to develop a new tool

Please see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497779 for
more information on how to properly fix this at the mime-support level
by auto-generating mailcap information out of the .desktop files.

Russ Alberry gave some tentative spec for such a tool:
http://lists.debian.org/87k446oqzh.fsf@...

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120229155932.GB24693@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Andreas Tille-2
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 04:59:32PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Russ Alberry gave some tentative spec for such a tool:
> http://lists.debian.org/87k446oqzh.fsf@...

Quoting this mail:

   I think one has to make the
   assumption that one can add %s after Exec in order to load a file, since
   the desktop entry doesn't have an equivalent of the command.

So in such a tool some kind of wild guessing is involved even if I do
not know any tool which contradicts this guess.  It was discussed in
this thread that mime contains more features than you can drain from
desktop files and that it is definitely not straightforeward to turn the
proposed "one liner that does 50%" of the job into a simple tool which
does 100%.

I'd consider the "chance to write something which might probably work in
most cases" as a weak excuse to drop a solution that worked for years
and would continue working quite reasonable.  I agree that duplication
of code/data is something that should be prevented, but it is actually
not a large amount of data which is duplicated nor does it have a great
history of frequent changes.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120229162459.GN11775@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Philipp Kern-4
In reply to this post by Raphael Hertzog-3
On 2012-02-29, Andreas Tille <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 04:59:32PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Russ Alberry gave some tentative spec for such a tool:
>> http://lists.debian.org/87k446oqzh.fsf@...
> Quoting this mail:
>
>    I think one has to make the
>    assumption that one can add %s after Exec in order to load a file, since
>    the desktop entry doesn't have an equivalent of the command.
>
> So in such a tool some kind of wild guessing is involved even if I do
> not know any tool which contradicts this guess.

Then please stop handwaving and show the problems with that approach.  AFAIK
desktop applications generally do it that way.  Heck, even (g)vim does it that
way.  (Now if people come and say it's not an editor but the beast:
emacs(client) does it likewise, thanks.)

> It was discussed in this thread that mime contains more features than you can
> drain from desktop files and that it is definitely not straightforeward to
> turn the proposed "one liner that does 50%" of the job into a simple tool
> which does 100%.

Yep.  As long as the 100% - x of the packages are still able to override the
autogenerated output of the .desktop file converter with proper MIME info,
that's fine, no?

That said, as an avid mutt users I think this should be solved.  :-P

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjksl24.mag.trash@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Josselin Mouette
In reply to this post by Andreas Tille-2
Le mercredi 29 février 2012 à 17:24 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> I'd consider the "chance to write something which might probably work in
> most cases" as a weak excuse to drop a solution that worked for years
> and would continue working quite reasonable.  I agree that duplication
> of code/data is something that should be prevented, but it is actually
> not a large amount of data which is duplicated nor does it have a great
> history of frequent changes.

Yes of course! We dropped the mime file because it never changes. It was
too hard to see it being always the same, glaring at you silently in the
corner of the eye.

--
 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1330533897.5874.212.camel@pi0307572

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Andreas Tille-2
Hi,

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 05:44:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le mercredi 29 février 2012 à 17:24 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > I'd consider the "chance to write something which might probably work in
> > most cases" as a weak excuse to drop a solution that worked for years
> > and would continue working quite reasonable.  I agree that duplication
> > of code/data is something that should be prevented, but it is actually
> > not a large amount of data which is duplicated nor does it have a great
> > history of frequent changes.
>
> Yes of course! We dropped the mime file because it never changes. It was
> too hard to see it being always the same, glaring at you silently in the
> corner of the eye.

When reading this I remember that I honestly wanted to ask how this

  "Send a report that this bug log contains spam."

works.  I once tried this and from the linked page it was not clear
whether I would mark the whole bug report as spam or only parts of it.
Could anybody clarify how it works to just mark a single message as
SPAM?

(Not that I really wanted to remove this very helpfull message from BTS
- I'm just reminded to the question I had and never managed to ask.)

Kind regards

       Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120229205353.GO11775@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#658139: evince: missing mime entry

Giovanni Biscuolo-3
In reply to this post by Giovanni Biscuolo-3
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:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497779#20

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:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-mime
in particular *if* mailcap (and update-mime) have to be used in packages
like evince

Ciao
Giovanni

--
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera - IT infrastructures
http://xelera.eu/contact-us/

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment