Re: [Libreoffice] Request for review: bug 32427

2010-12-29 Thread Jan Holesovsky 
Hi Norbert, all,

On 2010-12-21 at 10:18 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:

> Good point - actually, the easiest / best might be to enclose the entire
> call into '(' and ')', and add '&' to that?  Ie. it'd result into
> '( firefox something ) &'.  Any objections?

Updated patch attached to

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32427

Can you / anybody else please check it & apply it to libreoffice-3-3?

Thank you,
Kendy

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] Request for review: bug 32427

2010-12-21 Thread Jan Holesovsky 
Hi Norbert,

On 2010-12-21 at 03:01 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

> but maybe you should check if there is not a '&' already on the
> command line (a caller of this function may already have a '&'
> appended to his command line and may have used the 'magic number 42'
> as a flags that prevented the escape step (see line 266))

Good point - actually, the easiest / best might be to enclose the entire
call into '(' and ')', and add '&' to that?  Ie. it'd result into
'( firefox something ) &'.  Any objections?

[Also, I think I know why anybody else cannot reproduce it - don't have
the DESKTOP_LAUNCH set in the env where I was seeing the problem.]

Regards,
Kendy

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice