From 9a93e4b1adb38224ab62fc046112f2b9f56b05be Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak@gnome.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:32:09 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] unattended-file: More reliable test for raw images

The issue with checking if content type is
"application/x-raw-disk-image", is that it fails on systems with slighly
older shared-mime-info where the content_type is detected as
"application-octetstream".
---
 src/unattended-file.vala | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/unattended-file.vala b/src/unattended-file.vala
index 02aa92e..fbc8b76 100644
--- a/src/unattended-file.vala
+++ b/src/unattended-file.vala
@@ -66,8 +66,13 @@ private async void copy_with_mcopy (string       disk_file,
     private static bool is_libarchive_compatible (string filename) {
         // FIXME: We need better way to determine libarchive compatibility cause mcopy is used
         //        if this function returns false and mcopy can only handle MS-DOS images while
-        //        libarchive can handle other types of disk images
-        return GLib.ContentType.guess (filename, null, null) != "application/x-raw-disk-image";
+        //        libarchive can handle other types of disk images.
+        //
+        //        Just in case you get the idea to compare the content_type to
+        //        "application/x-raw-disk-image", that's what we were doing but then it failed
+        //        on systems with slighly older shared-mime-info where the content_type is
+        //        detected as 'application-octetstream'.
+        return !filename.has_suffix (".img") && !filename.has_suffix (".IMG");
     }
 }
 
-- 
2.4.3