On 03/29/2012 12:28 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 12:18 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 12:09 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> By no means:
>> 1) It *is* a kludge and is clearly brittle e.g. Chrome makes certain
>> choices based on the desktop environment, such as which password store
>> to use. Forcing it to think it's in Gnome when it really isn't means
>> these factors also need to be worked around.
>> 2) The kludge happens to work for Chrome because the latter is a GTK
>> app. It's not a general solution.
>> 3) It took a lot of effort to find, i.e. the "solution" is not easily
>> discoverable, and in fact works by *not* using anything in the KDE
>> environment. My original comment about this being too hard still stands.
> So, you will file a bugzilla with the Chrome folks, right? :-)
Once again, this is not a problem with Chrome! The particular kludge
happens to work with Chrome, but it's not a general solution to the
problem of setting a protocol handler in KDE.
I will consider filing a BZ with KDE though.
Why do you think it is not a problem with Chrome? If Chrome doesn't make program
selections based on the O/S it is running on then???
What do you want to happen? How will the OS influence what Chrome is calling to
complete an action it can't complete on its own?
> With FF, the solution is to edit their settings in about:config, right? It somehow
> knew about "transmission" but not about "ktorrent" so the
"fix" (I believe) would
> have to go there.
In fact both KDE and Gnome are supposed to use the XDG standard for
making these decisions, which in Fedora is expressed through a bunch of
Shell scripts (look for /usr/bin/xdg-*). The browsers have their own
mechanisms as well, but as we've seen they don't necessarily mesh well
with the DE. Maybe the division of responsibilities isn't clear enough,
I don't really know.
If the browsers mechanisms don't mesh with the DE then "who" is responsible
to fixing it?
> Whose effort found the solution? :-) :-)
I appreciate your efforts Ed, but I hope you'll understand that IMHO
even a working kludge is not the same as a solution.
I did indeed say it was a "kludge" so I'm sure I know the difference. :-)
The point however is...at the moment you've only got a "kludge" as an
far as I can tell. :-(
Yes, you're welcome.
Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both
be wrong. -- Dandemis