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
