On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 01:25:40PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:50:27PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:54:29AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:31:45PM +, José Matos wrote:
> > > > > It seems there are two questio
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:50:27PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:54:29AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:31:45PM +, José Matos wrote:
> > > > It seems there are two questions:
> > > >
> > > > (1) Are we still concerned about a security issu
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:54:29AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:31:45PM +, José Matos wrote:
> > > It seems there are two questions:
> > >
> > > (1) Are we still concerned about a security issue?
> > > (2) Regardless of a security issue, is xdg-open what we want?
>
>
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:31:45PM +, José Matos wrote:
> > It seems there are two questions:
> >
> > (1) Are we still concerned about a security issue?
> > (2) Regardless of a security issue, is xdg-open what we want?
I pushed against xdg-open long time ago when debian maintainers offered it
On Sat, 2022-11-12 at 11:19 -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> At some point xdg-open had security concerns. I don't know the
> details, but from what I understand those issues are no longer
> relevant.
Were they ever relevant. As far as I remember some of the problems were
due to old implementations
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
rgheck writes:
Should we search for xdg-open as a pdf viewer, and use it if we find
it? I have been manually setting my pdf viewer to xdg-open
This has been discussed in the past, but I am not sure any more what the
outcome has been. Normally, this stuf
rgheck writes:
> Should we search for xdg-open as a pdf viewer, and use it if we find
> it? I have been manually setting my pdf viewer to xdg-open
This has been discussed in the past, but I am not sure any more what the
outcome has been. Normally, this stuff should go in
os_unix.cpp:canAutoOp
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 13:51 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Well . . . windows may have 90% of the users, but I am not sure
> they have a better user-experience. They seem to believe that
> occational crashes and such is "normal". . . ;-)
Can we get them to test the trunk then? They did this for M$
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> ok, the second patch rolls it back. Juergen use the previous one or this
> one as you like.
Yes, please commit this (and add a note to status.15x, please).
Jürgen
Pavel Sanda wrote:
not regress for everyone. imo.
well now the status is we have regression of 1.5.3 to 1.5.2 for some
users.
some = (small) minority, as well as creating a much better user-experience
for the rest.
continuing this way we can one day conclude that we shou
>> Actually, I'm not sure how to proceed here. What do others think?
>>
>>
> If it's causing problems, let's just roll it back until we have something
> that actually works. We've had a good discussion, and we know what the
ok, the second patch rolls it back. Juergen use the previous one or t
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Juergen you are the 1.5 chief, what you think ?
Actually, I'm not sure how to proceed here. What do others think?
If it's causing problems, let's just roll it back until we have
something that actually works. We've had a good discussion
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Juergen you are the 1.5 chief, what you think ?
Actually, I'm not sure how to proceed here. What do others think?
Jürgen
> >> not regress for everyone. imo.
> >
> > well now the status is we have regression of 1.5.3 to 1.5.2 for some
> > users.
>
> some = (small) minority, as well as creating a much better user-experience
> for the rest.
continuing this way we can one day conclude that we should stop support linu
Sven Hoexter wrote:
So the only to viable options I see are
a) remove the xdg-open calls
aa) and maybe replace them with a list of the distro specific tools like
mimeopen or run-mailcap (pretty long and ugly list ...)
b) try push some changes to xdg-open and hope for a fast adoption rate with
Helge Hafting wrote:
rgheck wrote:
We've been using xdg-open as the first choice for the Debian
packages and
subsequently the Ubuntu packages for over a year now and didn't
receive such
a problem report so I suspect that it makes more sense to fix the
broken
setup instead of reverting this
Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> not regress for everyone. imo.
>
> well now the status is we have regression of 1.5.3 to 1.5.2 for some
> users.
some = (small) minority, as well as creating a much better user-experience
for the rest. ok, I'm done (I think I've made my point/opinion as clearly
as I can n
> the minority, and the focus should be to help fix these exceptional cases,
this means to put the whole mime stuff into xdg because there is no promise
that every distro has the mailcap/mime packages. even if you manage to write
such patches it will take some time to push it upstream (i see the P
Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
>> I don't think that it would help a lot to hack parts of the mime
>> detection
>
> DE detection will solve it, but it would uglify the code and could break
> anytime DE change something etc.
>
>> > So the only to viable options I see are
>> > a) remove the xdg-open calls
> > what i see know is that simple xdg-open runs just in case you use one of
> > the three dm or have the luck of having the distro which patches it
>
> perl-mimeinfo and/or run-mailcap looks like a winner for you then. That's
thats not question of winner for me. i can hardcode my lyx preference
Rex Dieter wrote:
> fwiw, mimeopen support was added to fedora's xdg-utils, and I had the
> intention of pushing that upstream, but never got round-tuit. My bad.
FYI, xdg-utils: perl-mimeinfo support
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13953
-- Rex
> I don't think that it would help a lot to hack parts of the mime detection
DE detection will solve it, but it would uglify the code and could break
anytime DE change something etc.
> > So the only to viable options I see are
> > a) remove the xdg-open calls
agree with this.
> > aa) and maybe
Sven Hoexter wrote:
> I don't know how long it will take to puch some of the mime stuff
> integrated in Debian and Fedora(?) and maybe others upstream.
I plan on finishing this by the end of the week.
As an aside, while I'm working on this anyway, anyone with any other
xdg-utils-related patche
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> what i see know is that simple xdg-open runs just in case you use one of
> the three dm or have the luck of having the distro which patches it
perl-mimeinfo and/or run-mailcap looks like a winner for you then. That's
primarily why I'll be working to get these both integrated
Sven Hoexter wrote:
> So the only to viable options I see are
> a) remove the xdg-open calls
> aa) and maybe replace them with a list of the distro specific tools like
> mimeopen or run-mailcap (pretty long and ugly list ...)
> b) try push some changes to xdg-open and hope for a fast adoption r
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:15:32AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Hi,
> > they should configure it properly. If they don't want to use xdg-open,
> > then get rid of xdg-utils and LyX configure will pick the next possible
> > viewer...
>
> you can not rid of xdg-utils simply - they are in dependencie
> they should configure it properly. If they don't want to use xdg-open,
> then get rid of xdg-utils and LyX configure will pick the next possible
> viewer...
you can not rid of xdg-utils simply - they are in dependencies of other packages
(eg cups here).
pavel
rgheck wrote:
We've been using xdg-open as the first choice for the Debian packages
and
subsequently the Ubuntu packages for over a year now and didn't
receive such
a problem report so I suspect that it makes more sense to fix the broken
setup instead of reverting this change.
The only wa
> > we have our own system for launching viewers for different filetypes, so
> > why to pass the control to xdg-open, which (at least on some) systems work
> > worse ?
>
> Please submit patches (to xdg-utils) to add support for your "own system",
> and I'll do what I can to them integrated into up
Per Olofsson wrote:
> Well, I submitted the patch over a year ago:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8158
I'll (help) take care of it, looks nice, btw. :)
-- Rex
Per Olofsson wrote:
> rgheck wrote:
>> Per Olofsson wrote:
>>> There is no mention of mimeopen in copy of xdg-open. Could it be another
>>> distro-specific patch?
>>>
>>>
>> Sounds like it.
>
> Seems like a good patch, I should add it to the Debian package. Which
> distribution are you running
Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Yes, but the point is that by using xdg-open, we use whatever the user
>> has set as default, rather than (say) using acroread when they've set
>> kpdf. The
>
> afaik the problem is that there is no unified system how to handle file
> types in linux. xdg-open is just script
Per Olofsson wrote:
rgheck wrote:
Per Olofsson wrote:
There is no mention of mimeopen in copy of xdg-open. Could it be another
distro-specific patch?
Sounds like it.
Seems like a good patch, I should add it to the Debian package. Which
distribution are you running?
Per Olofsson wrote:
Sven Hoexter wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:36:50PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
If it's really too much pain to fix xdg-open then I've to agree that it
would make more sense to revert the change.
have you some experience how much are xdg devs communicativ
rgheck wrote:
> Per Olofsson wrote:
>> There is no mention of mimeopen in copy of xdg-open. Could it be another
>> distro-specific patch?
>>
>>
> Sounds like it.
Seems like a good patch, I should add it to the Debian package. Which
distribution are you running?
>
>> mimeopen seems like the pr
Per Olofsson wrote:
rgheck wrote:
We've been using xdg-open as the first choice for the Debian packages and
subsequently the Ubuntu packages for over a year now and didn't
receive such
a problem report so I suspect that it makes more sense to fix the broken
setup instead of reverting this cha
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:26:29PM -0500, rgheck wrote:
> Darren Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 -0500, rgheck wrote:
>>
>>> xdg-open is supposed just to open whatever viewer you have defined for
>>> the relevant file type. If you're not using one of the desktops for which
>>> it
Sven Hoexter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:36:50PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
>>> If it's really too much pain to fix xdg-open then I've to agree that it
>>> would make more sense to revert the change.
>> have you some experience how much are xdg devs communicative about the
>> run-mailcap
> There is nothing specific to gnome, kde or xfce in xdg tools.
yes there is (in xdg-open):
detectDE
...
case "$DE" in
kde)
open_kde "$url"
;;
gnome)
open_gnome "$url"
;;
xfce)
open_xfce "$url"
;;
generic)
open_generic "$url"
;;
*)
exit
On Saturday 05 January 2008 17:19:33 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> afaik the problem is that there is no unified system how to handle file
> types in linux. xdg-open is just script trying handle gnome,kde and xfce;
> so anyone using another manager (e16 in my case) get firefox for _any_ kind
> for filetype.
Sven Hoexter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:36:50PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
>>> If it's really too much pain to fix xdg-open then I've to agree that it
>>> would make more sense to revert the change.
>> have you some experience how much are xdg devs communicative about the
>> run-mailcap
>> xdg-open is just script trying handle gnome,kde and xfce; so anyone using
>> another manager (e16 in my case) get firefox for _any_ kind for filetype.
>>
>>
> not if you have mimeopen installed, which basically reads the freesesktop
what package exactly do you mean ? i already have various
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:36:50PM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > If it's really too much pain to fix xdg-open then I've to agree that it
> > would make more sense to revert the change.
>
> have you some experience how much are xdg devs communicative about the
> run-mailcap
> thing ?
Nope but I'v
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Yes, but the point is that by using xdg-open, we use whatever the user has
set as default, rather than (say) using acroread when they've set kpdf. The
afaik the problem is that there is no unified system how to handle file types in linux.
Yes, but
xdg-open is ju
> Well I've to admit that the Debian version of xdg-open is patched a little
> bit so it won't do to the browser thingy and instead use run-mailcap.
yes this is my impression what should have been done while looking last hours
into the xdg sources.
> So it's been working fine even on my KDE free
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:14:43PM -0500, rgheck wrote:
>
>> We've been using xdg-open as the first choice for the Debian packages and
>> subsequently the Ubuntu packages for over a year now and didn't receive such
>> a problem report so I suspect that it makes more sense to fix the broken
>> setup
Darren Freeman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 -0500, rgheck wrote:
xdg-open is supposed just to open whatever viewer you have defined for
the relevant file type. If you're not using one of the desktops for
which it is defined (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) and, moreover, don't have
But I am
> Yes, but the point is that by using xdg-open, we use whatever the user has
> set as default, rather than (say) using acroread when they've set kpdf. The
afaik the problem is that there is no unified system how to handle file types
in linux. xdg-open is just script trying handle gnome,kde and
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:50 -0500, rgheck wrote:
> xdg-open is supposed just to open whatever viewer you have defined for
> the relevant file type. If you're not using one of the desktops for
> which it is defined (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) and, moreover, don't have
But I am using KDE. Is it possible t
We've been using xdg-open as the first choice for the Debian packages and
subsequently the Ubuntu packages for over a year now and didn't receive such
a problem report so I suspect that it makes more sense to fix the broken
setup instead of reverting this change.
The only way you can get to
On Saturday 05 January 2008 15:59:17 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> thats why i have asked why we use it as a _first_ choice.
xdg-open is the first choice because it is intended to be a single place
where you configure which program shows each format instead of doing that for
every single application.
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:45:14AM -0500, rgheck wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
>>> xdg-open is supposed just to open whatever viewer you have defined for
>>> the relevant file type. If you're not using one of the desktops for which
>>> it is defined (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) and, moreover, don't have mime
Pavel Sanda wrote:
xdg-open is supposed just to open whatever viewer you have defined for the
relevant file type. If you're not using one of the desktops for which it is
defined (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) and, moreover, don't have mimeopen installed and
working, then xdg-open checks for a browser it ca
> xdg-open is supposed just to open whatever viewer you have defined for the
> relevant file type. If you're not using one of the desktops for which it is
> defined (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) and, moreover, don't have mimeopen installed and
> working, then xdg-open checks for a browser it can use and us
Darren Freeman wrote:
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:52 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
as a consequence of including xdg-open for our viewers i got
for any viewing of ps/dvi/pdf files firstly firefox opened
and after that actual viewer opened (through the firefox own mechanism,
which at the end means
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:52 +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> as a consequence of including xdg-open for our viewers i got
> for any viewing of ps/dvi/pdf files firstly firefox opened
> and after that actual viewer opened (through the firefox own mechanism,
> which at the end means i'm not able to view
> "José" == José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
José> Should we consider it for all formats or just for those that
José> you have suggested?
José> If the former we should consider it on the same level of auto
José> for mac and windows...
To have it on the same level of auto as mac and
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 07:00:47PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> > all(most) formats is appropriate. It's equivalent to saying "open file
> > foo with it's default app".
>
> I am in favour of this, too. Somebody said that xdg-open does not work well
> on some distros. This sho
Rex Dieter wrote:
> all(most) formats is appropriate. It's equivalent to saying "open file
> foo with it's default app".
I am in favour of this, too. Somebody said that xdg-open does not work well
on some distros. This should be reported to the vendor, I believe that it
is good if we push xdg a
José Matos wrote:
> On Monday 05 March 2007 4:05:38 pm Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Attached is a first crack at patching lyx-1.5 to prefer using xdg-open
>> (1) to open external files/urls from lyx.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Should we consider it for all formats or just for those that you have
> suggested?
On Monday 05 March 2007 4:05:38 pm Rex Dieter wrote:
> Attached is a first crack at patching lyx-1.5 to prefer using xdg-open (1)
> to open external files/urls from lyx.
>
> Comments?
Should we consider it for all formats or just for those that you have
suggested?
If the former we should con
61 matches
Mail list logo
