Bug#172436: Updated BROWSER proposal

["Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>]

Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org> writes:
>
> > "web browser to display an URL."
> > I don't like the sentence, but anyway I don't worry much,
> > because the program should be sensible, and open browser
> > only with correct protocols.
>
> I've changed it to:
>
> 	<p>
> 	  Some programs have the ability to launch a web browser to
> 	  display a resource identified by a URL.  Since there are lots of
> 	  different web browsers available in the Debian distribution, the
> 	  system administrator and each user should have the possibility
> 	  to choose a preferred web browser.
> 	</p>
>
> > FYI: "xdg-open" could enter in new LSB,
> > as a generic URL opener (not only for browser):
> > http://portland.freedesktop.org/xdg-utils-1.0/xdg-open.html
>
> This was previously discussed in this bug.  I think xdg-open is orthogonal
> to what we're trying to accomplish here.

Yes, I was thinking it was more general, but it handle only file:// and
web browser.
I think we need a generic URL method, which simulated the browser
behaviours (i.e. mailto: open mail client, ...). But this is
not (yet) a topic for policy.

> > > +              Since there are lots of different web browsers
> > > +  available in the Debian distribution, the system administrator
> > > +  and each user should have the possibility to choose a preferred
> > > +  web browser.
> > > +</p>
> > Is "lots of different" correct?
>
> Yes.  It's not the most ideal wording, but it's correct.
>
> > Anyway it is a rationale, so I would remove the first part.
>
> No, rationale belongs in Policy.  It will eventually become more clearly
> marked as informative rather than normative, but not having rationale has
> caused us problems in the past.

Ok, right. POSIX rationale are very informative.
But I think that this rationale is incorrect. Probably
because of "lots of different".
Substitute "web browser" to MTA, and you see it is not
so correct.
I think the "lots of different" means "lots of
web browser installed at the same time".

Anyway is a minor point, and I will not slow
down resolution of this old bug for such things.

> > These 4 paragraphs enter to much in details of a program.
> > I'll really remove these paragraphs, and let the programs
> > use only "/usr/bin/sensible-browser" (next paragraph), so it is
> > easier to update the policy (evolution of FreeDesktop, ...).
>
> No, Policy needs to explain what sensible-browser is supposed to do, and
> needs to explain what's required for interoperability; programs are not
> required to use any specific wrapper if they want to implement (or if
> upstream has already implemented) the same logic.

Hmm. ok.

> > I think that next paragraph is good, and IMO we should not
> > describe rules in details.
>
> I think it's very important that Policy describe rules in detail.  If it's
> important enough to put in Policy, it's important enough to describe in
> detail.

Hmm. It is related to the previous answer, so ok to include the full
list of requirements.

But I don't agree on your argument. I see it like /usr/sbin/sendmail.

For example: a program that send mail, should use /usr/sbin/sendmail.
I don't think we should specify the behaviour of common
options (for MTA and for the caller). I would be very disappointed
if a MTA or a caller use it in a totally wrong way, but
I don't want that a full description should be written in policy.
Let write in policy only important or controversy points,
to have more people read the policy!

But reading the bug history, I think that the full description
should be included.

So I'm ok with the proposal (but I'm not in the policy team)

ciao
	cate