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 <rob...@robertqualls.com> wrote: > I'll probably do that. However, right after posting, I 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 PATH or something. > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Alastair Knowles <kno0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Rather than waiting for upstream, you could always temporarily place the >> script in the AUR. >> On 18/12/13 21:59, 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 and not having xdg-open available >>>> will break them, for zero added value. >>> Looking back, I see how my thread title suggested renaming xdg-open. I >>> actually didn't mean this. I just think that the open should refer to >>> xdg-open or any other agnostic file opener. Other than breaking >>> things, it's quite possible that xdg-open will not always be the best >>> way to open files, especially since it assumes a desktop environment. >>> >>> Since some of the more conservative distributions are worried about >>> compatiblity, it might be possible for an interim script to determine >>> whether the call is likely to open a file or is intended for openvt. >>> Maybe. xdg-mime query filetype and if it's a file, use xdg-open? >>> >>> I threw this together. Seems to work for the one file case. >>> >>> if xdg-mime query filetype $1 &>/dev/null; then >>> xdg-open $1 &>/dev/null >>> else >>> openvt "$@" >>> fi >>> >>> As an update, I posted an issue at Arch Linux, and the response seemed >>> to indicate it was acceptable for them, but Arch culture is to wait >>> for changes to occur upstream, so they aren't going to change >>> anything. As of right now, open points to nothing in Arch. >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Frederic Crozat <f...@crozat.net> wrote: >>>> 2013/12/17 Matthew Paul Thomas <m...@canonical.com>: >>>> >>>>> 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. <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh> A bunch of shell >>>>> scripts broke, and people had to fix them. We survived. >>>>> >>>>> Renaming/aliasing xdg-open to open, you wouldn't have a righteous >>>>> Posix standard to stand on. But on the other hand, I'd guess many, >>>>> many fewer scripts would be affected. I suggest lobbying a niche OS to >>>>> try it and see what happens. If it works, the more popular OSes can >>>>> follow. >>>> 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 added value. >>>> -- >>>> Frederic Crozat >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> xdg mailing list >>>> xdg@lists.freedesktop.org >>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> xdg mailing list >>> xdg@lists.freedesktop.org >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg >> _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg