From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alexander Pohoyda Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: [rmail-mbox-branch]: mail-utils Date: 09 Oct 2004 20:15:40 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87mzyvrc4z.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> <20041006214742.GA5180@fencepost> <87mzywyeau.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> <20041008234741.GA17298@fencepost> <878yafj2tn.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 1097345772 24296 80.91.229.6 (9 Oct 2004 18:16:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, ding@gnus.org, Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 09 20:16:01 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 1CGLlA-0001OV-00 for ; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:16:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CGLs1-0006uG-6B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:23:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CGLrt-0006rE-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CGLrt-0006ql-A5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CGLrt-0006qb-5d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [213.165.64.20] (helo=mail.gmx.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CGLkz-0002ae-Jc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:15:49 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 12054 invoked by uid 65534); 9 Oct 2004 18:15:48 -0000 Original-Received: from p5084259A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO www2.gmx.net) (80.132.37.154) by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 09 Oct 2004 20:15:48 +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 i99IFitG001372; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:15:44 +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 i99IFeCf001369; Sat, 9 Oct 2004 20:15:40 +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: Stefan 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:28147 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:58790 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28147 Stefan writes: > > My primary concern, however, is that mm- stuff is rather a MIME > > parser (viewer), while rfc*.el files implement basic functions. > > Wouldn't it be good to have these two things clearly separated? > > I guess I'd agree with the following: > - changes that remove dependencies from rfc* to mm* Great! I'll work out the patch. > - changes that remove dependencies from mm* to gnus* That would be another step, OK? > - moving rfc* and mm* files from gnus/ to mail/ Good. I'm only interested in rfc* files, so that's what I'm advocating. > I don't see a strong need to create a mime-only subdirectory (of course > mail/mime is even worse since we currently only support one level of > subdirectory). OK, no problems, I agree to what you say. Just for my education, what's the problem with two level directories? -- Alexander Pohoyda PGP Key fingerprint: 7F C9 CC 5A 75 CD 89 72 15 54 5F 62 20 23 C6 44