From 9a93e4b1adb38224ab62fc046112f2b9f56b05be Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" 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