On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > Thanks for the Cc, don't forget it next time, too :) :) Have you heard of the Reply-To: header? That does just what you want. > * Chris Halls <chris.halls@gmx.de> [2002-05-13 14:47]: > Am not sure, didn't check the source about it - just noticed it :) But > I guess it's upstream if you don't know about it *smirks* Yep, I just checked again and I can't control that :( Maybe we can do a dirty hack by making ~/.mailcap read-only or something similar while setup is run. > Good, users shouldn't have to run update-mime themself No no, it was a mistake I made - users were never meant to run it themselves > [openoffice script checks for ~/.openoffice hardcoded instead of > checking ~/.sversionrc] > > Hmm, well at least with a fixed ~/.openoffice we know if the user ran setup > > manually for themselves :) > > > > The whole setup thing needs looking at - making this one change won't fix a > > great deal and will make it harder to tell if there was another problem. It > > needs a good solution, not just another hack. > > I am not that good in posix scripting, maybe I can find a dirty hack > for that openoffice script to check that... I think we have to at least > have the version "OpenOffice.org 1.0" hardcoded in the script for the > check within the .sversionrc file, or is there a way to get that version > string from somewhere? Umm, what I meant was that I'm not convinced we should be doing this at all - the existence of an OpenOffice.org 1.0 directory implies the user ran setup manually, and I'd rather we don't even support running setup manually, since it introduces new unwanted problems. The only reason for running manually at the moment, is so that the Java home can be specified instead of being none, and I'd rather we solve that automatically, too. > > Yes, that sounds like it's likely to be an upstream problem. I'm not 100% > > sure that the registration process actually works yet... > > Well, I sometimes get the impression that I must be the only user in > the world behind a auth-proxy. I run into such problems all the time - > but that only makes our systems better, doesn't it :) Hehe - absolutely. I'll leave it to you to take it upstream :) Chris -- Chris Halls | Frankfurt, Germany
Attachment:
pgpTTVfP5BkoD.pgp
Description: PGP signature