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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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'
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.
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
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
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
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'
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
