On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 11:42, H�vard Wigtil wrote: > On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 12:00, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 09:08, H�vard Wigtil wrote: > > > I'm trying clean up the mime types for Abiword in Gnome. > > That would be text/abiword IIRC. > Gnome (and KDE, IIRC) currently uses application/x-abiword. In the past > when I've downloaded attachments from the list archives they've been > application/abiword. > Part of the cleanup I'm doing is removing the remains of text/abiword, > but I could put it back if there is strong consensus on text/abiword, > and consensus on a separate type (aplication/x-abiword-compressed?) for > .zabw files.
hmms, then its probable that I recalled incorrectly :) text/x-abiword(-compressed)? is better. > > > > One problem is that there is some confusion on what the executable name > > > should be. IIRC, in older releases there used to be in /usr/bin an > > > "AbiWord" link to the executable, where as recent releases only ship > > > with an "abiword" link. (And the link is not part of the files listed in > > > the RPM, which is IMHO bad.) > > The link is there, just try to do: rpm -q abiword --scripts > > Besides, a user that would be confused with that, probably doesn't even > > know how to do rpm -ivh file.rpm. > But you can't do "rpm -qf /usr/bin/abiword" if you're confused, or do > "rpm -V abiword" to discover that the link is gone. > Imagine that grandma somehow manages to delete /usr/bin/abiword, if the > link is part of the installed files tools such as Red Carpet will be > able to tell her that she has a damaged package and fix it for her. good points. I will see to that, however it won't be ready for 1.0's abiword.spec. However, at least both Ximian and RedHat use their own specs. Hugs, rms -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi + So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
