Re: file(1) / magic(5) database vs shared-mime-info database
Kip Warner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.xdg.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, 2018-02-24 at 14:17 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> There's probably others, but that's already a good chunk of the
> problems we'd encounter if we used file's database.
In case it's of interest to anyone, I asked file(1) / magic(5)'s
upstream maintainer about whether his mechanism and shared-mime-info
were redundant with each other or whether they were intended to solve
different problems. This was Christos Zoulas's (cc'd) response in
respect of shared-mime-info:
I have not looked at the code but for the most part getting the
majority of the file formats that need mime handing does not require
the complexity that file requires to parse all the weird and
recursive cases... Also they don't have any performance constraints
(they don't need to be able to process thousands of files per
second). So for them, it is perhaps simpler to parse and maintain a
separate database.
--
Kip Warner | Senior Software Engineer
OpenPGP signed/encrypted mail preferred
https://www.cartesiantheatre.com
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 163 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEABECAAYFAlqTN6oACgkQLXnfK7bii20SNwCdEBNt1aN+JXubCC+Pfemulw6b bg8AoLOWRb4Gowy0GEMeCzQY45CCog3F =Eggu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----