Re: [RFC] rename mime.conf

Just wanted to say this is the first time I have been seen a thread
about it.
If we will define it in the squid.conf as one of the main component it
will might look differently.

On 11/16/2013 06:11 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> For quite some time I have been trying to get the package distributors
> to handle our mime.conf file as a Squid-specific config file, which gets
> FHS $(sysconf) installation instead of a Squid a data file, which gets
> FHS $(datadir) installation.
OK a list of packages options:
apt(deb)
yum(rpm)
emerge(dont remeber? ebuild?)
pkgtool\installpkg(slackware..)
any others?

Instead of jumping to change the file name can we *try* to "ping" these
package distributors\maintainers and notify them that there is a meaning
to this file name?(2 pings and then drop the route...)?

In RH they do not re-distribute\re-build packages for a very long period
of time and which they just probably released a new version:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=990186

I do not believe that for RH it will be changed(this file) for a very
long time.

Eliezer

>
> But there are still some strong holdouts for a couple of reasons...
>
> * some simply do not get the idea that something called mime.conf can be
> completely different in purpose from mime.conf / mime.table provided by
> the OS for file type sniffing.

> These ones are mapping our mime.conf to that table and screwing over
> the FTP and Gopher directory listings. (Thankfully it is not the OS
> getting screwed over).

>
> * some are having issues with our mime.conf clashing with the system one
> in their automated system install/uninstall tools and QA systems.
>
>
> It has been a long battle and I think we have reached a stalemate where
> I cannot do much more than just rename the file and avoid both these
> confusions.
>
> Are there any objections to renaming mime.conf to icons.conf ?
> Or suggestions of a better file name for it ?
>
> Amos
>
Received on Sat Nov 16 2013 - 20:31:35 MST