From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [rmail-mbox-branch]: mail-utils Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:57:46 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: 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> <87acutulj0.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1097572729 14913 80.91.229.6 (12 Oct 2004 09:18:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 12 11:18:43 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 1CHInr-0007D1-00 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:18:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHIup-0003oN-Rs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:25:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHIan-00087O-WA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:05:14 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CHIam-00086y-WE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:05:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHIam-00086v-PL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:05:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CHITa-00084m-UZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:57:47 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CHITa-0003Tq-Hx; Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:57:46 -0400 Original-To: Alexander Pohoyda In-reply-to: <87acutulj0.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> (message from Alexander Pohoyda on 11 Oct 2004 21:01:23 +0200) 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:28285 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:28285 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) Yes, let's do that. > 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. Sorry, what does this refer to? Force them to do what?