From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alexander Pohoyda Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [rmail-mbox-branch]: mail-utils Date: 11 Oct 2004 21:01:23 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87acutulj0.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> References: <1096006177.432792.29828.nullmailer@Update.UU.SE> <1096014084.739640.30529.nullmailer@Update.UU.SE> <200410031040.i93Ae1YS000609@oak.pohoyda.family> <87d5zvwmq9.fsf_-_@oak.pohoyda.family> <87r7o8yf4g.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> <878yaeuo8x.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097521749 9642 80.91.229.6 (11 Oct 2004 19:09:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 11 21:09:00 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CH5XY-0003Lm-00 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:09:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CH5eV-0002i1-A9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:16:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CH5du-0002PB-J3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:15:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CH5dt-0002O4-5z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:15:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CH5ds-0002Nc-Uv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:15:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [213.165.64.20] (helo=mail.gmx.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CH5Wh-0001Sw-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:08:07 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 32099 invoked by uid 65534); 11 Oct 2004 19:01:26 -0000 Original-Received: from p50843A75.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO www2.gmx.net) (80.132.58.117) by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 11 Oct 2004 21:01:26 +0200 X-Authenticated: #14602519 Original-Received: from oak.pohoyda.family (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www2.gmx.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9BJ1OnB000651; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:01:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net) Original-Received: (from apog@localhost) by oak.pohoyda.family (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i9BJ1N1v000648; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:01:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net) X-Authentication-Warning: oak.pohoyda.family: apog set sender to alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net using -f Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:28250 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28250 Richard Stallman writes: > Meanwhile, I have re-implemented about 20 rfc* functions because I > didn't like their dependency on mm-* code. My implementation is also > cleaner in a way that it uses even more basic general-purpose mail > functions which I will try to put into mail-utils.el file. > > I like the idea of doing it this way. How many lines do they add up > to? Let's decide whether this should be one file or many. My "lightweight" implementation is currently ~20KB (organized in 6 files) plus ~16KB of new code for mail-utils.el file. I'm perfectly fine with the idea to put those 20KB in one file (let's call it lisp/mail/mime.el) > What I'm going to do now is to remove mm-* dependency from > lisp/gnus/rfc*.el files and submit a patch here. > > I cannot follow this part. If we are replacing and eliminating the > code in lisp/gnus/rfc*.el, why talk about patching those files? You're right, that sounds suboptimal. However, I'm afraid that Gnus people will not like the idea of adapting Gnus to a new code and I don't want to force them to do this. Then again, there may be almost no adaptation needed. -- Alexander Pohoyda PGP Key fingerprint: 7F C9 CC 5A 75 CD 89 72 15 54 5F 62 20 23 C6 44