Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On 24/12/13 02:38, Liam R E Quin wrote: > On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 00:28 -0600, Robert Qualls wrote: >> open belongs in a separate project for high-level, >> user-facing commands that's basically just a bunch of wrappers that >> can be easily personalized by users and maintained over time. If it use

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On Tuesday, 2013-12-24, 17:06:08, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 24 December 2013 16:37, Kevin Krammer wrote: > > Well, a quick check would have revealed that it is. > > Cross platform development always requires testing on the targetted > > platforms, > > one can not simply assume things. > > But I

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On 24 December 2013 16:37, Kevin Krammer wrote: > Well, a quick check would have revealed that it is. > Cross platform development always requires testing on the targetted > platforms, > one can not simply assume things. > But I don't go and check that simple commands like cp or grep will work o

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On Tuesday, 2013-12-24, 16:26:27, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 24 December 2013 15:06, Kevin Krammer wrote: > > > BTW, I happen to know one breakage caused by Linux not having open(1) > > > > like > > > > > OS X. https://github.com/swaroopch/byte_of_python/issues/8 > > > > Looks like the implemen

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On 24 December 2013 15:06, Kevin Krammer wrote: > > BTW, I happen to know one breakage caused by Linux not having open(1) > like > > OS X. https://github.com/swaroopch/byte_of_python/issues/8 > > Looks like the implementors either had not thought about cross platform > integration or had no infor

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On Tuesday, 2013-12-24, 12:59:13, Ma Xiaojun wrote: > Fail to see the connection. I guess xdg, if it stands for X Desktop > Group, would be obsolete soon if people move to Wayland or Mir based > desktop. I think it is more reasonable to assume it stands for cross desktop. Most xdg specification

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

Windows uses "start". I honestly still feel the "open" command should be reserved for this. Maybe we should make a recommendation to distributions, but leave the choice up to them at least for the time being. J. Leclanche On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Sanel Zukan wrote: >> Fail to see the co

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

> Fail to see the connection. I guess xdg, if it stands for X Desktop > Group, would be obsolete soon if people move to Wayland or Mir based > desktop. I doubt this will happen, for two reasons: * there is code and software written using 'xdg' prefix (e.g. xdgmime) so unless someone feels ext

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

Le Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:59:13 +0800, Ma Xiaojun a écrit : > > A danger in customizing shell-level commands is that shell-scripts > > can become hard to debug remotely and hard to share. > > True. But you can even customize /bin/sh on Debian/Ubuntu. > > > I'm personally in favour of keeping xdg-o

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

> A danger in customizing shell-level commands is that shell-scripts can > become hard to debug remotely and hard to share. True. But you can even customize /bin/sh on Debian/Ubuntu. > I'm personally in favour of keeping xdg-open and not making a grab for > "open", because it helps people remembe

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 00:28 -0600, Robert Qualls wrote: > [...] > open belongs in a separate project for high-level, > user-facing commands that's basically just a bunch of wrappers that > can be easily personalized by users and maintained over time. This > way, the community can have a discussio

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

That's actually a really cool concept. J. Leclanche On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Robert Qualls wrote: > Although I was the one that brought this up, after what has been > discussed so far, I definitely don't think xdg should own the open > command, either through link, rename, or script. It'

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

Although I was the one that brought this up, after what has been discussed so far, I definitely don't think xdg should own the open command, either through link, rename, or script. It's possible the user will want xdg-utils but will prefer to have open associated with something other than xdg-open.

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

I have to agree. Regardless of the decision on xdg's side, the debian-specific "open" binary shouldn't exist. J. Leclanche On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Ma Xiaojun wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> Btw, I don't find "I like open better" a good justification

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Btw, I don't find "I like open better" a good justification for > dropping it from kbd - you are asking essentially for an API break > which has unforseen consequences if we just swap some binary names on > shell, especially with shell-scri

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

Bug filed for Debian's kbd package: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=732796 For some reason I forgot to include a title... ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

If xdg went ahead with the rename, and if debian included that update, that would create a conflict on that package. I don't know what they would do, but since the command is pretty much deprecated, I can assume they would drop /bin/open from kdb and warn users. The reason it's still there is they'

Re: open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

On 21 December 2013 08:37, Ma Xiaojun wrote: > The good news is now that, console-tools, the package provides open(1) > in Debian, is being removed recently, if I understand correctly: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/console-tools.html > I think it's still provided in the kbd package: http://p

open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

Hi, List: I admittedly like the usage of "open" command in OS X (maybe Haiku also). As far as I know, neither POSIX nor LSB mentions open(1) at all. It is not a goal for toybox project either: http://www.landley.net/toybox/status.html In other words, it is not a standard and no one uses it. The

Re: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

Le Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:58:57 +0100, Diggory Hardy a écrit : > Replying because this is a good question and not fully answered... > > The problem is not standards but compatibility, as stated. > > What was not mentioned is that Debian switched the default /bin/sh > implementation from bash to a

Re: Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

On Wednesday, 2013-12-18, 04:59:33, Robert Qualls wrote: > > I have to agree with you, but I have strong doubts about just > > "renaming" xdg-open to open (without keeping xdg-open available) > > because of lot of 3rd party applications (including proprietary one) > > have standardized on xdg-open

Re: Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

I just realized that anything using openvt with absolute paths (i.e. open /bin/bash) won't work with that script, so it would need to also / instead check if the file is in a PATH folder. On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Robert Qualls wrote: > I'll probably do that. However, right after posting,

Re: Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

> I have to agree with you, but I have strong doubts about just > "renaming" xdg-open to open (without keeping xdg-open available) > because of lot of 3rd party applications (including proprietary one) > have standardized on xdg-open and not having xdg-open available > will break them, for zero add

Re: Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

2013/12/17 Matthew Paul Thomas : > I wouldn't be so hasty in giving up on renaming. Ubuntu has already > been through something similar in 2006, when we changed /bin/sh from > Bash to Dash. A bunch of shell > scripts broke, and people had to fix them. We survi

Re: Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Qualls wrote on 16/12/13 15:21: > ... > > It might not seem like a big deal. When I was drawn to the shiny > lie of Ubuntu back in 2007, I mostly stayed away from the terminal > because I thought it was hard and complicated. And I wasn't far >

Re: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Diggory Hardy wrote: > Replying because this is a good question and not fully answered... > > The problem is not standards but compatibility, as stated. > > What was not mentioned is that Debian switched the default /bin/sh > implementation from bash to a simpler P

Re: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

Replying because this is a good question and not fully answered... The problem is not standards but compatibility, as stated. What was not mentioned is that Debian switched the default /bin/sh implementation from bash to a simpler POSIX shell (I think dash) not so long ago. Naturally, they had

Re: Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

Simon McVittie wrote: > And then what? How does this group impose their world view on the > other 99.99% of the world? Standards aren't about coercion. It's more like "if enough people agree on this thing or some modification of it we've proposed, then it's the case now." Of course, if enough grou

Re: Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

On 16/12/13 15:21, Robert Qualls wrote: > The fact that one-word command names are such a limited resource > means that they shouldn't be used by obscure programs. openvt is probably older than some of the people on this mailing list (its git history starts in 2007, but the man page is dated July

Fwd: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

Forwarded because I accidentally just replied to Simon. -- Forwarded message -- From: Robert Qualls Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM Subject: Re: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability? To: Simon McVittie The fact that one-word command names are suc

Re: Re: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

On 16/12/2013 13:22, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 16/12/13 10:03, Robert Qualls wrote: >> Instead of making users google this, shouldn't we just have a > universal >> 'open' command on all freedesktop environments? > > Unfortunately, that name is already taken. On my Debian system: > [...] > > This i

Re: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

On 16/12/13 10:03, Robert Qualls wrote: > Instead of making users google this, shouldn't we just have a universal > 'open' command on all freedesktop environments? Unfortunately, that name is already taken. On my Debian system: archetype% which open /bin/open archetype% dpkg -S /bin/open kbd: /bi

'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?

Today I was about to open a pdf from the terminal and realized that I forgot what my document viewer was. I tried something that I assumed wouldn't work but seemed fairly logical and obvious - the 'open' command. Now, of course, that did not work, but after a search I was somewhat surprised to see