package evince
tag 658139 - wontfix
block 658139 by 685790
package tech-ctte
tag 681687 - wontfix
close 681687
thanks
As recorded in #681687 the TC has made the following decision:
1. The Technical Committee agrees with Neil McGovern's analysis of
the situation regarding evince's missi
Josselin Mouette writes:
> This is a completely unrelated issue. Gimp opening PDFs is a bug in
> gimp, not a bug in evince. Furthermore, it only happens with the XDG
> system outside GNOME/KDE, not with the old MIME system, since gimp
> doesn’t ship a legacy MIME file.
> I’d appreciate if the re
Le mercredi 18 juillet 2012 à 16:52 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Michael Biebl writes:
> > On 18.07.2012 11:14, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> >> For info, I do not consider all packages missing a mime file to be RC
> >> buggy. I consider #658139 RC.
>
> > And what is the reason that makes evince
Michael Biebl writes:
> On 19.07.2012 01:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It leads to PDF files being opened in Gimp, which you must agree is
>> very surprising behavior.
> GIMP no longer installs a mime file (or never has, dunno). So I would be
> very surprised if see foo.pdf would open it in GIMP :-
On 19.07.2012 01:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Biebl writes:
>> On 18.07.2012 11:14, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
>>> For info, I do not consider all packages missing a mime file to be RC
>>> buggy. I consider #658139 RC.
>
>> And what is the reason that makes evince special and distinguishes it
>
Michael Biebl writes:
> On 18.07.2012 11:14, Neil McGovern wrote:
>> For info, I do not consider all packages missing a mime file to be RC
>> buggy. I consider #658139 RC.
> And what is the reason that makes evince special and distinguishes it
> from other packages which never shipped a mime fil
On 18.07.2012 11:14, Neil McGovern wrote:
> 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
>> direct
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 f
there is a small typo...
On 17.07.2012 23:45, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Just some numbers I got by grepping over the archive on lintian.d.o:
>
> # of packages shipping .desktop files with MimeType associations: 601
^
Just some numbers I got by grepping over the archive on lintian.d.o:
# of packages shipping .desktop files with MimeType associations: 601
# of packages shipping a corresponding mime file in
/usr/lib/mime/packages: 89
If a missing mime file would mean an RC bug, this would instantly make
514 pack
10 matches
Mail list logo
