Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
On 2012-11-05 16:00, Cor Blom wrote: > openSUSE, mageia and ubuntu (as it is coming with the distro, don't > know about lyx-ppa) are using the same patch (it was once committed to > lyx-svn, but reversed). I am manintaining the openSUSE packages and I > have never heard a complaint about them. The reason I include the > patch is that it is easier for beginners and for more advanced users > easy to change. > > Sources with patch are here: > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=lyx&project=Publishing > > BTW: I have read the discussion of the past and understand the > problems. It is not perfect. > > Regards, > > Cor > Yes, we (with my fedora had here) have always used that patch ever since it was reverted in svn without any complaints. -- José Matos
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > You have seen in the 2008 discussion what the problems were at the time. > It might be worth revisiting this problem now and see whether > run-mailcap or xdg-open could be used these days. IMHO it is clear that xdg-open should be used in the long run, but not as long as it has severe drawbacks. If the problems do still exist it would be very nice if somebody could file a bug report in trac, including a summary of the problems that currently prevent LyX from using xdg-open. Then future questions could be directed to that bug report. Georg
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
Here is the patch. I include it in my Fedora packages at http://www.box.com/kslyx/ On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Richard Heck wrote: > On 11/05/2012 10:00 AM, Kayvan Sylvan wrote: > >> In the Fedora distribution lyx packages, an xdg-open patch is applied >> and the resulting lyx seems to work correctly. >> > Can you post that patch? > lyx-2.0.1-xdg_open.patch Description: Binary data
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
Op 05-11-12 16:00, Kayvan Sylvan schreef: In the Fedora distribution lyx packages, an xdg-open patch is applied and the resulting lyx seems to work correctly. openSUSE, mageia and ubuntu (as it is coming with the distro, don't know about lyx-ppa) are using the same patch (it was once committed to lyx-svn, but reversed). I am manintaining the openSUSE packages and I have never heard a complaint about them. The reason I include the patch is that it is easier for beginners and for more advanced users easy to change. Sources with patch are here: https://build.opensuse.org/package/files?package=lyx&project=Publishing BTW: I have read the discussion of the past and understand the problems. It is not perfect. Regards, Cor
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
On 11/05/2012 10:00 AM, Kayvan Sylvan wrote: In the Fedora distribution lyx packages, an xdg-open patch is applied and the resulting lyx seems to work correctly. Can you post that patch? rh On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:34, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 05/11/2012 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : xdg-open tries to open a file with the "preferred" application of a user for that file on Linux (which is usually the application that is used when you double click on a file in your desktop environment). I think the command "open" on Mac does the same thing. I'm guessing there's a similar Windows command? Note that for Mac OS and Windows, we already use the system's API. See AutoOpen stuff in os_(unix|win32).cpp. Unfortunately, no such API exists for linux. Adding support for these could be a solution to common questions I see such as: "why does LyX open pdf files with Okular when I want it to open with Evince" and similar complaints. You have seen in the 2008 discussion what the problems were at the time. It might be worth revisiting this problem now and see whether run-mailcap or xdg-open could be used these days. JMarc
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
In the Fedora distribution lyx packages, an xdg-open patch is applied and the resulting lyx seems to work correctly. On Nov 5, 2012, at 1:34, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 05/11/2012 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : >> xdg-open tries to open a file with the "preferred" application of a >> user for that file on Linux (which is usually the application that is >> used when you double click on a file in your desktop environment). I >> think the command "open" on Mac does the same thing. I'm guessing >> there's a similar Windows command? > > Note that for Mac OS and Windows, we already use the system's API. See > AutoOpen stuff in os_(unix|win32).cpp. Unfortunately, no such API exists > for linux. > >> Adding support for these could be a solution to common questions I see such >> as: >> "why does LyX open pdf files with Okular when I want it to open with Evince" >> and similar complaints. > > You have seen in the 2008 discussion what the problems were at the time. > It might be worth revisiting this problem now and see whether > run-mailcap or xdg-open could be used these days. > > JMarc >
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
Le 05/11/2012 03:51, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : xdg-open tries to open a file with the "preferred" application of a user for that file on Linux (which is usually the application that is used when you double click on a file in your desktop environment). I think the command "open" on Mac does the same thing. I'm guessing there's a similar Windows command? Note that for Mac OS and Windows, we already use the system's API. See AutoOpen stuff in os_(unix|win32).cpp. Unfortunately, no such API exists for linux. Adding support for these could be a solution to common questions I see such as: "why does LyX open pdf files with Okular when I want it to open with Evince" and similar complaints. You have seen in the 2008 discussion what the problems were at the time. It might be worth revisiting this problem now and see whether run-mailcap or xdg-open could be used these days. JMarc
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
On 11/04/2012 10:25 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: Scott Kostyshak wrote: It seems the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But I wanted to ask here for feedback. Please search the archives, it was long story why we don't support xdg-open. OK. It looks like a long and intense story indeed: http://lyx.475766.n2.nabble.com/xdg-open-td484474.html We might should put a comment somewhere in the source. This issue comes up every few months, since it seems like such a good idea. rh
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> It seems the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But I wanted to >> ask here for feedback. > > Please search the archives, it was long story why we don't support xdg-open. OK. It looks like a long and intense story indeed: http://lyx.475766.n2.nabble.com/xdg-open-td484474.html Thanks, Scott
Re: support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
Scott Kostyshak wrote: > It seems the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But I wanted to > ask here for feedback. Please search the archives, it was long story why we don't support xdg-open. Pavel
support for xdg-open (Linux) and open (Mac)
xdg-open tries to open a file with the "preferred" application of a user for that file on Linux (which is usually the application that is used when you double click on a file in your desktop environment). I think the command "open" on Mac does the same thing. I'm guessing there's a similar Windows command? Adding support for these could be a solution to common questions I see such as: "why does LyX open pdf files with Okular when I want it to open with Evince" and similar complaints. This could also be a solution to some MIME problems (e.g. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/142567) I haven't thought about how I would implement this as a (user-controlled) alternative to the current behavior. I'm guessing that it is not a good idea because (1) Different command for each platform. (2) There should be a platform-independent solution to the MIME problems. (3) The users who want Evince instead of Okular can be easily instructed on how to change it in Preferences. It seems the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. But I wanted to ask here for feedback. Thanks, Scott
