Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Victor Engmark [2011.11.24.1417 +0100]: >> I hope you're not just being facetious. I don't know why GNOME >> would decide that the current mode is better than the alternative, >> and judging by the rest of the discussion so do

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

also sprach Victor Engmark [2011.11.24.1417 +0100]: > I hope you're not just being facetious. I don't know why GNOME > would decide that the current mode is better than the alternative, > and judging by the rest of the discussion so do others. If you > know then could you please enlighten us? I a

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:47 PM, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Victor Engmark [2011.11.24.1326 +0100]: >> A better workaround would be to fix gnome-terminal to use make >> sure it doesn't run in the background by default. > > Indeed. Please fix Firefox and OpenOffice.org while you're at it

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

also sprach Victor Engmark [2011.11.24.1326 +0100]: > A better workaround would be to fix gnome-terminal to use make > sure it doesn't run in the background by default. Indeed. Please fix Firefox and OpenOffice.org while you're at it. ;) -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :'

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

[This has also been reported at by me.] The root source of the bug is that rm -f $TMPFILE is run *before* Mutt has had time to read $TMPFILE. This happens only if the mailto link contains the "body" property and /usr/bin/x-terminal-emul

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

reopen 576313 thanks Hi Jonathan, this sounds more than reasonable, let's reopen and I'll try to fix again this for 1.5.21-3; sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers Antonio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact lis

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

Hi, Antonio Radici wrote: > Wrapper and news entry to be added in mutt/1.5.21-2 (to go to > experimental). For reference: | mailto-mutt has been replaced by a wrapper as per #576313, because mutt is now | able to handle the mailto: urls; additionally it will also do some checks on | attachments

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

tag 576313 +patch pending confirmed thanks Wrapper and news entry to be added in mutt/1.5.21-2 (to go to experimental). Cheers Antonio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

On 2010-04-08 10:05, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Philipp Weis [2010.04.06.1943 +0200]: > > * Replacing your script with the new minimal wrapper will not change > > this script behaves at all. Mutt does all the mailto URL parsing > > that your script used to do -- no functionality wil

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

also sprach Philipp Weis [2010.04.06.1943 +0200]: > * Replacing your script with the new minimal wrapper will not change > this script behaves at all. Mutt does all the mailto URL parsing > that your script used to do -- no functionality will be lost. But didn't you say that mutt mailto canno

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

On 2010-04-06 08:06, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Philipp Weis [2010.04.03.2315 +0200]: > > > Want to take a shot at a patch? > > > > Sure, attached is a minimal wrapper that I believe should replace the > > current version. > > That's not really what I had in mind when I said "deprecat

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

also sprach Philipp Weis [2010.04.03.2315 +0200]: > > Want to take a shot at a patch? > > Sure, attached is a minimal wrapper that I believe should replace the > current version. That's not really what I had in mind when I said "deprecation warning" — it should preserve existing functionality bu

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

On 2010-04-03 10:00, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Philipp Weis [2010.04.03. +0200]: > > On top of that, mailto-mutt doesn't handle body specifications > > properly. > > > > /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt 'mailto:test?body=test' > > > > doesn't do anything, > > Works fine for me, but i

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

also sprach Philipp Weis [2010.04.03. +0200]: > On top of that, mailto-mutt doesn't handle body specifications > properly. > > /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt 'mailto:test?body=test' > > doesn't do anything, Works fine for me, but if mailto-mutt is really no longer necessary, then that's good.

Bug#576313: Is /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt still useful?

Package: mutt Version: 1.5.20-7 Severity: normal The script /usr/lib/mutt/mailto-mutt is supplied as a handler for mailto: urls, but mutt itself handles these urls just fine, even though it not exactly documented. What's the rationale for having this extra script around? There is one useful thing