From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#40247: 27.0.90; mailcap-mime-data erased when parsing mime parts Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 21:19:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83zh8n12aj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86eete20ef.fsf@csic.es> <87eepzundn.fsf@tcd.ie> <834kqv2jlb.fsf@gnu.org> <87imfbrsnk.fsf@tcd.ie> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="107446"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: juanjose.garcia.ripoll@csic.es, 40247@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 28 20:20:11 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbuT-000Rq6-JN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 20:20:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48924 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbuS-0001zR-LG for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:20:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51434) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbuM-0001zG-8a for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:20:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:35353) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbuL-0005Ka-UC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:20:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbuL-0001p4-Pv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:20:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 18:20:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 40247 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 40247-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B40247.15933683766964 (code B ref 40247); Sun, 28 Jun 2020 18:20:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 40247) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2020 18:19:36 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46899 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbtv-0001oG-Ou for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:19:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37014) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbtt-0001o0-LA for 40247@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:19:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45784) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbtn-0005CU-PB; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:19:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4724 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jpbtm-00075w-Qe; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 14:19:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87imfbrsnk.fsf@tcd.ie> (contovob@tcd.ie) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:182480 Archived-At: > From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" > Cc: juanjose.garcia.ripoll@csic.es, 40247@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 18:45:19 +0100 > > > That might be too late: we hope to have the first RC this week or the > > next. > > That just means the bug won't be fixed until 27.2 or 28.1, right? Could be, yes. > Unfortunately my hands are completely tied until Thursday (I shouldn't > even be writing this email!), and either way I think the fix will > involve non-trivial code changes. That's okay, the bug doesn't sound too bad to me. > Should bug#39200 therefore be marked as no longer blocked by this? I don't really mind, those blocking attributes are advisory only. This bug has been open for many moons and no one seemed to care too much, so I don't see how it could be really blocking.