Hi Vincent, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> When the user runs a text program that uses the mailcap system (e.g. > Mutt) in GNU Screen, it is not possible to run as X11 program via the > mailcap system after the X11 session has changed, because the value > of $XAUTHORITY has changed. Using a fixed symlink (in a private > directory, for more security) to the real X authority file, possibly > depending only on the screen session, and updated via a screen > wrapper, might work as a work around, but has some limitations > (e.g. because several screens could be used on several displays) > compared to the following suggestion. Could you elaborate? Currently "run-mailcap" only reads $DISPLAY and does not write $XAUTHORITY or any other variable, and that actually seems sensible to me. By using system(3), run-mailcap leaves the option open of bypassing the shell and using execve(3) directly when no metacharacters appear, or compiling mailcap files to bytecode to speed up more complex entries. I don't know if either of those would be a net win; I just mention them to explain why I think that _not_ respecting $SHELL is a good abstraction. It sounds to me like your usecase would be better served by teaching run-mailcap to use some hook to update the environment (but why run-mailcap and not all the other tools that might launch an X program, like xdg-open?) or a more rich mailcap syntax that allows ~/.mailcap to override /etc/mailcap in a more complex way. Or something like that --- it's not obvious to me since I don't understand the context yet. Thanks for writing, and hope that hellps. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
