On 5.12.2013 20:10, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:

...

[2013-12-04 15:00:31 -0500] Sébastien Leblanc:

...

I am kind of annoyed by the time it takes to update the MIME database

Please, please, please. Bug reports and feature requests go to:

I'm not sure whether this should classify as a bug report.

Back to the topic. Lately, I have been annoyed by that, too. Maybe it's some recent change (or I just didn't notice it before). I concur, syncing something like MIME database that can be easily rebuild in case an unlikely filesystem corruption occurs seems kinda stupid.

Lukas

It's a "feature". It happened on 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade, and I believe that this commit may be the culprit: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xdg/shared-mime-info/commit/?id=b58fea97ee157951... You can try reverting it yourself and then rebuilding the package to see if this is the actual problem. If it is, I suggest you report bug to shared-mime-info maintainers (bugs.fd.o).

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:

[2013-12-04 15:00:31 -0500] Sébastien Leblanc:

...

I am kind of annoyed by the time it takes to update the MIME database

Please, please, please. Bug reports and feature requests go to:

Thank you, I already know the URL to the bug tracker, but I was not looking to file a bug, or anything. I am only sharing a patch with fellow Arch users. Upstream already mentioned that this is their "expected" behavior (they wish to default to safety). https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70366#c9 Thanks to Rodrigo, I now know the existence of 'libeatmydata'. -- Sébastien Leblanc

On 06/12/13 05:39, Timothée Ravier wrote:

On 05/12/2013 20:10, Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:

...

[2013-12-04 15:00:31 -0500] Sébastien Leblanc:

...

I am kind of annoyed by the time it takes to update the MIME database

Please, please, please. Bug reports and feature requests go to:

I'm not sure whether this should classify as a bug report.

How could this not qualify for a bug report?

Maybe this should also be discussed upstream as this is not a Arch specific issue as far as I understand. Maybe they do have reasons for calling fsync so heavily.

...

Back to the topic. Lately, I have been annoyed by that, too. Maybe it's some recent change (or I just didn't notice it before). I concur, syncing something like MIME database that can be easily rebuild in case an unlikely filesystem corruption occurs seems kinda stupid.

Again, file a bug upstream.

I have seen this bug filed upstream and rejected. It is a "feature"... For the same reason, I would frown on Arch patching it out. It is how upstream decided they want their software. Allan

Yet another option is to fork shared-mime-info and upload an AUR package for the fork. If upstream WONTFIX an issue that several people perceive to be a bug, or WONTFIX a popular feature request, they should be aware that someone forking the project is a real possibility. Such are they perils and joys of open source software. - Alexander / xyproto