On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 11:14 CET, Fred Kiefer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07.02.2012 10:56, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 09:42 CET, Fred Kiefer<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> On 07.02.2012 09:21, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > >>> Another thing I'd really like to have is some more cross desktop > >>> integration, for example, > >>> allowing .desktop files, used in KDE and others, to work. I'd really > >>> like to define Firefox or > >>> something similar as my default browser. (until Vespucci is production > >>> ready ;) > >> > >> We already once had a Google Summer of Code student to work on cross > >> desktop integration. Sadly not much came from that. > >> I remember writing .desktop support ages ago. The file specification may > >> have changed in between, most certainly it has, but it should be really > >> easy to update our file generation to match the current standard. What > >> is currently broken? > > > > Well, I have a couple of .desktop files around on my GWorkspace Destop. > > Double clicking > > them, doesn't do anything. I'd expect them to start the application > > configured in Exec=, or open the > > URL from URL=, and use the icon defined in Icon= ... > > but nothing happens when I click on such icon. > > I just checked that with Ink, after installing Ink it was sufficient to > click the .desktop file for it to start up the application.
Ah, I have a .desktop icon on my desktop for OpenOffice for example, and nothing happens. The oofromtemplate defined in Exec= is in my path. I also have another icon, that doesn't have a Exec=, but a URL= to a website, also there, nothing happens. > > >> As for specifying a default browser, this should be as easy as to write > >> a GNUstep wrapper, that is just a .plist file and to copy it to where > >> make_services will find it. There must already be a lot of these > >> wrappers out there, where do we collect them? Maybe we should set up > >> some space in our source code repository to collect them? > > > > They are in GWorkspace apps_wrappers subdirectory. But this approach > > generally has a flaw: > > For how many applications do we want to create wrappers, when/where do we > > stop? ;) > > We obviously cannot do so for every application. Further, the paths to the > > application can be on > > different places on different OS, for example /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin > > ... > > > > On the other hand, many applications install a .desktop file in > > /usr/local/share/applications/ > > (at least which is the path for me on OpenBSD), and icons too. Packages > > that do that then run > > update-desktop-database from the desktop-file-utils package on install. > > Afterwards it shows > > up in the users menu, under the defined categories. > > > > IIRC, the Makefiles support creation of .desktop files, from the info taken > > from the App bundle. > > > > AFAIK, there doesn't exist something the other way around, allowing other > > application to create > > an App Wrapper automatically. Even if that would exist, you'd still have to > > get others to make use of > > it, which I think is then the harder part. > > > > I'd also really like to have an applications menu in GWorkspace, built from > > the information from those > > .desktop files in /usr/local/share/applications, that would allow me to > > browse all installed applications > > and just start them from the menu ;) > > > > Supporting this really standard stuff would prevent us from > > creating/maintaining a truckload of > > Apps Wrappers. I actually created some of those apps wrappers for about 20 > > or so applications > > but Riccardo refused to add them to the Apps wrappers, he said, this is not > > a kitchen sink, and > > it should only contain really common used apps. Which I understand and is > > fine with me. > > But on the other side, creating and maintaining own apps wrappers, is also > > a bit cumbersome. > > To get support for all this we should start off to implement UTI (or > steal it from Etoile while they are busy with all the interesting stuff > they are doing) and integrate this with the native file mapping of the > system. The annoying thing here is that we need that to work for all our > possible environments, which means we need something for Windows and > also basic support for environments without native file to application > mappings. Ah, here it sounds to get more complicated. Sebastian _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
