On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:51:50PM +0100, Brian White wrote:
I can change the cat option to only match copiousoutput entries if
you
wish. It's a perfectly reasonable behavior given that cat isn't
defined
in the first place.
Yes, could you please do so.
That would be the best
I can change the cat option to only match copiousoutput entries if
you
wish. It's a perfectly reasonable behavior given that cat isn't
defined
in the first place.
Yes, could you please do so.
That would be the best since as you say cat isn't defined in the first
place and at least
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:07:10PM +0100, Brian White wrote:
[...]
I can change the cat option to only match copiousoutput entries if you
wish. It's a perfectly reasonable behavior given that cat isn't defined
in the first place.
Yes, could you please do so.
That would be the best since as
I too think, --action=cat should ignore X viewers.
After all, original --action=cat use case (as requested by me btw in
#526690) was to use it as canonical filter. So _filtering_ functionality
was assumed by --action=cat, and otherwise to me cat seems to be useless
because we have
What are use-cases for current cat behaviour? If there is none
besides being used as a filter, let's please make it ignore
interactive viewers and just pipe the result to stdout.
That would be my preference too. To obtain the functionality as
Brian implemented it, I'd probably rather
What are use-cases for current cat behaviour? If there is
none besides being used as a filter, let's please make it
ignore interactive viewers and just pipe the result to
stdout.
That makes sense, but I can think of no generic way to know if it's an
interactive viewer.
I thought
What are use-cases for current cat behaviour? If there is
none besides being used as a filter, let's please make it
ignore interactive viewers and just pipe the result to
stdout.
That makes sense, but I can think of no generic way to know if it's an
interactive viewer.
I
Brian, I appreciate your maintainership of run-mailcap, but first
you take a long time to reply then you upload immediately without
waiting for feedback on your comments. You have a couple people
here interested in testing and providing feedback prior to
release...
Brian White wrote: [Thu Dec 03
I thought copiousoutput meant non-interactive stdout. Am
I mistaken?
copiousoutput indicates that the program produces a lot of output
and should be fed into a pager program so as to not overwhelm the
user. I've added a --nopager option in the latest upload.
So by strict RFC
Brian White wrote: [Thu Dec 03 2009, 04:07:10PM EST]
I thought copiousoutput meant non-interactive stdout. Am
I mistaken?
copiousoutput indicates that the program produces a lot
of output and should be fed into a pager program so as to
not overwhelm the user. I've added
I too think, --action=cat should ignore X viewers.
After all, original --action=cat use case (as requested by me btw in
#526690) was to use it as canonical filter. So _filtering_ functionality
was assumed by --action=cat, and otherwise to me cat seems to be useless
because we have --action=view.
Kirill Smelkov wrote: [Mon Oct 12 2009, 09:40:11AM EDT]
I too think, --action=cat should ignore X viewers.
After all, original --action=cat use case (as requested by me btw in
#526690) was to use it as canonical filter. So _filtering_ functionality
was assumed by --action=cat, and otherwise
Whoops, forgot to attach it. Here it is.
#! /usr/bin/perl
###
#
# Run-Mailcap: Run a program specified in the mailcap file based on a mime
# type.
#
# Written by Brian White bcwh...@pobox.com
# This file has been
Hi Brian, I must be missing the point of --action=cat. Its name
seems to imply non-interactive stdout, but it will still run
X-based viewers and needsterminal viewers. The latter seems
especially strange since the user probably doesn't want an
interactive curses viewer if they used
I don't agree. Cat is like view but without a pager. To have it
choose otherwise would be confusing. The mailcap system is pretty
fragile in general; I don't think you should try to shoe-horn extra
functionality this way. Instead, create a filter action in the
rules you want and use
I came to the conclusion that --action=cat should ignore mailcap
entries other than copiousoutput.
I don't agree. Cat is like view but without a pager. To have it choose
otherwise would be confusing. The mailcap system is pretty fragile in
general; I don't think you should try to shoe-horn
Package: mime-support
Version: 3.46-1
Severity: normal
I've observed that there's no way to differentiate between
calling run-mailcap to view an file (for example running ooffice)
and calling run-mailcap to translate a file to text/plain (for
example for viewing in mutt). The only indicator
17 matches
Mail list logo
