On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:36:52AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:24:51AM +0200, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> >
> > On 19.9.2013, at 06:34, Nick Dokos <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Carsten Dominik <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > >> On 18.9.2013, at 14:14, Suvayu Ali <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >>> I think that is expected. The bug is in the desktop specific open
> > >>> commands. Since you use none, generic open is used. That is simply a
> > >>> shell function, and does the right thing.
> > >>
> > >> Is there a generic open command in Linux? Why don't we use this instead?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not really. There is a shell function called open_generic inside of
> > > xdg-open. I believe that's what Suvayu was referring to. But there is
> > > no clean way of calling it, short of pulling it out of the xdg-open
> > > script into a new script: as a general solution, that's hopeless.
> >
> > All right. Too bad. Thank you.
>
> Nick said it accurately. It is part of the xdg-open script.
I have some good news (sort of). We can force generic open by calling
xdg-open like this[1]:
DE=generic xdg-open /path/to/file
I tested this with
(start-process-shell-command "DE=generic xdg-open test.html"
nil "DE=generic xdg-open test.html")
and it works well. Do you think this is acceptable?
Cheers,
Footnotes:
[1] <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=653249#c20>
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
