Re: [Libreoffice] Request for review: bug 32427
Hi Norbert, all,
On 2010-12-21 at 10:18 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> Good point - actually, the easiest / best might be to enclose the entire
> call into '(' and ')', and add '&' to that? Ie. it'd result into
> '( firefox something ) &'. Any objections?
Updated patch attached to
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32427
Can you / anybody else please check it & apply it to libreoffice-3-3?
Thank you,
Kendy
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] Request for review: bug 32427
Hi Norbert,
On 2010-12-21 at 03:01 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> but maybe you should check if there is not a '&' already on the
> command line (a caller of this function may already have a '&'
> appended to his command line and may have used the 'magic number 42'
> as a flags that prevented the escape step (see line 266))
Good point - actually, the easiest / best might be to enclose the entire
call into '(' and ')', and add '&' to that? Ie. it'd result into
'( firefox something ) &'. Any objections?
[Also, I think I know why anybody else cannot reproduce it - don't have
the DESKTOP_LAUNCH set in the env where I was seeing the problem.]
Regards,
Kendy
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] Request for review: bug 32427
Hi, Can you please review the patch from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32427 and apply if OK? When Firefox is not running, and an URL is launched from LibreOffice, it blocks until Firefox is closed again. Apparently the conditions to see it must be a bit special, but still, I think that the patch does not harm ;-) I've done it #ifdef LINUX only. Regards, Kendy ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
