[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#348775: general: terminal emulators' alternatives settings' priorities annoy users


Loïc Minier wrote:

 Rationale: you don't want to see konqueror launched as the default
 browser in GNOME but you want GNOME to be integrated with Debian.

Ah, I remember that one as well.

 It is simple to extend this scheme with:
 - gnome-www-browser for browsers with GNOME support (epiphany-browser,
   galeon, firefox-gnome-support, ...)

And GNOME would by default be configured to launch gnome-www-browser,
thus solving the problem for GNOME users who do not set any other
browser in gnomecc. The question for me would be whether this affects people who use neither GNOME nor KDE (the browsers optimized for a specific environment could then be demoted to some lower priority than the non-specific ones, perhaps?)

 - check for $DISPLAY and eg. $GNOME_DESKTOP_SESSION_ID in
   sensible-browser to decide to launch gnome-www-browser or default to

Sounds good.

 These changes were commited in galeon and epiphany's SVN, the changes
 to sensible-browser and to firefox remain to be done.

You mean, that they now register as an alternative for gnome-www-browser?

 Of course, this could be followed for KDE too.

It should not be difficult to get that done. I had somehow expected that the bug report and any followups are forwarded to -devel to spark discussion, so I'm explicitly forwarding it there.

 Simon, would this help with the problem you mentionned?

Not entirely, since it isn't limited to browsers or terminals. Many users have personal preferences about things that are currently handled through the alternatives system, and the sysadmin's choice (or non-choice, as in the "bumping priorities" scenario) will affect them.

For example, everytime a GNOME or KDE application launches, a lot of dotfiles will be created for me, so I'd like to avoid this as much as possible as I will only have to clean up afterwards.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: