On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:01:59PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
To facilitate that, I'd say the definition of that virtual package should
include a desktop file with at least text/html, x-scheme-handler/http
and x-scheme-handler/https in its MimeType list (I think that's what
makes it eligible
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 15:23:11 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Right now we have at least one package (one of the lxde* ones) shipping
> a .desktop file that references x-www-browser but does not guarantee
> that x-www-browser exists; this can be resolved via a virtual package.
>
> I agree that
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:23 AM Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Right now we have at least one package (one of the lxde* ones) shipping
> a .desktop file that references x-www-browser but does not guarantee
> that x-www-browser exists; this can be resolved via a virtual package.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:14:07AM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
No, the alternatives system is not really useful for users (as only root
can choose an alternative). Having root choose a single
{editor,pager,browser,...} for all users is not a good solution.
Right now we have at least one
Paul Wise writes:
> On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 13:20 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> I could add a sensible-x-www-browser to be more nice to our user to
>> sensible-utils
>
> We already have a x-www-browser alternative, so sensible-x-www-browser
> would just duplicate that and is thus not needed.
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 13:20 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> I could add a sensible-x-www-browser to be more nice to our user to
> sensible-utils
We already have a x-www-browser alternative, so sensible-x-www-browser
would just duplicate that and is thus not needed.
--
bye,
pabs
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:46 AM Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:19:13PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > Please use xdg-open instead of reinventing it. Unlike the alternatives
> > system, xdg-open respects the per-user configuration written by our
> > default GNOME desktop (and
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 02:19:13PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 at 13:20:14 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > I could add a sensible-x-www-browser to be more nice to our user to
> > sensible-utils
>
> Please use xdg-open instead of reinventing it. Unlike the alternatives
>
On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 at 13:20:14 +0100, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> I could add a sensible-x-www-browser to be more nice to our user to
> sensible-utils
Please use xdg-open instead of reinventing it. Unlike the alternatives
system, xdg-open respects the per-user configuration written by our
default
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:49 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 PM Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> > I thought I'd post here to see if anyone had any information first.
>
> I noticed that this idea came up in 2010 and 2014 so I think we never
> had x-www-browser, only www-browser.
I
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:03 PM Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I thought I'd post here to see if anyone had any information first.
I noticed that this idea came up in 2010 and 2014 so I think we never
had x-www-browser, only www-browser.
https://lists.debian.org/20141117130332.ga9...@free.fr
11 matches
Mail list logo
