Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> writes:
> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2017-08-23 09:27:54)
> > xdg-open <filepath> ?
>
> Not sure, but I think sensible-browser is better: As I understand it
> XDG covers only graphical desktop environments, whereas sensible-*
> tools cover console environments as well.
In the case of essentially graphical programs like the ones I'm thinking
of (e.g. “MuscleBook”), a pixel-based graphical browser would be
required. That means ‘xdg-open’ is better for this purpose.
So I would make a package that “Depends: xdg-utils”, and install a
simple ‘/usr/bin/musclebook’ shell script:
#! /bin/sh
exec xdg-open /usr/share/musclebook/index.html
Would that be fragile in some way? Is there something I am overlooking?
--
\ “It's my belief we developed language because of our deep inner |
`\ need to complain.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list
Pkg-javascript-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
