https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164305
Hossein <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #12 from Hossein <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jeff Fortin Tam from comment #6) > > Kind of similar question in bug 164311. > I don't see how this directly relates; I'm not asking to change the > binaries' names or paths on the filesystem, I'm asking for the application > to more helpfully nickname itself in the Linux processes list so that it's > more recognizeable and humanized. If even Python apps can do it, why can't > LibreOffice? The goal is not clear for me. You have some binaries, soffice.bin and oosplash, and some script, soffice, that run on Linux, and similar names on other platforms. These names are important, they are displayed in different places and the output of different commands, and people use these names to change/stop/manipulate the process(es). Then, what is wrong here? A binary executable can have some short name, and this is not strange. Please provide an example to make it easier to understand the feature request. Which program is doing something similar to your request? And in case of using long, descriptive aliases, wouldn't it be harder to change/stop/manipulate the process(es), without knowing the name of the actual binary file? You may argue that we need to change the binary name to something like 'libreoffice', or even get rid of the soffice script (for example, because of tdf#163863), but without these changes, I don't see any possible way to achieve what you want. We have window names that have clear, human readable names, and those should be enough. In current form, unfortunately I can only recommend a wontfix. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
