Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:03:54 +0100 From: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thunderbird no longer viewing http URLs Message-ID: <200502241003.54867.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> In-Reply-To: <421D504B.3060109@freebsd.org> References: <421C1A19.5060805@freebsd.org> <421CC2FE.2080105@FreeBSD.org> <421D504B.3060109@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El Jueves, 24 de Febrero de 2005 04:55, Doug Barton escribi=F3:
> Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> > | In any case, I'll ask gnome@ about:
> > | - merge the uri patch to firefox/thunderbird
> > | - take off the XFT knob
> > | - make gnomevfs enabled in the default firefox/thunderbird build.
> > |
> > | I honest think that this is the way to go, even for non-gnome
> > | users.
> >
> > I'm not so sure non-GNOME users will agree with you here. I
> > support your first two ideas, but I think making gnomevfs2 a
> > mandatory dependency will piss off a lot of people. Especially
> > since you have things like:
> >
> > user_pref("network.protocol-handler.app.http", "firefox");
> > user_pref("network.protocol-handler.app.https", "firefox");
>
> Joe,
>
> Thanks so much for this, it worked like a charm! FWIW, this is with
> thunderbird that has the URI patch, but firefox that does not. I had
> already tried the URI patch and it didn't work in just thunderbird.
> Then I saw this message.
>
> As for your sentiment above, and in the following messages to this
> thread, as you know I am firmly in the camp of "less mandatory gnome
> bits." That is of course with all due respect to the great stuff that
> gnome offers, and the fine folks on our gnome@ team, it's just not my
> tool of choice. In fact, I would really prefer to ditch the gconf
> dependency in firefox, and I would definitely not support making
> gnomevfs mandatory, especially if we're unsure what the benefits
The main problem is that gconf supersedes .app settings if find valid. =20
Without the patch, mozilla take the gnome registry as invalid and try=20
using the .app settings. This is what you are seen in firefox.
But with the patch (that makes possible what mozilla want), if you have=20
gconf2 installed (that maybe from other app depends), the gnome=20
registry is declared valid and take precedence over .app settings.
I think we must document what mozilla.org have declared the default way. =20
If we don't make the packages RUN_DEPENDS on gconf, the faq must point=20
to install gconf2 (or gconf-editor. which allready depends on gconf2)
=20
> would be. I would also oppose removing the Xft knob, since someone
> may want to build without it. Having it enabled by default (as it is)
> covers what most of our userbase would want.
>
Now FreeBSD mozilla apps are gtk20 based. We are lost gtk1 and I don't=20
remember have qt builds. I'm not so sure that building a gtk20 app=20
without Xft support may be of any interest.
> If you go about documenting stuff like you pasted above, let me know
> and I'd be glad to contribute what I can to the cause, I ran across
> some useful configuration options while desperately trying to find
> one that would serve this purpose. Not sure how I missed the
> protocol-handler stuff, but I'm sure glad you knew about it. The
> other thing I've learned is the use of the user.js file for these
> non-standard options, but you probably know about that one already
> too. :)
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Doug
=2D-
josemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502241003.54867.josemi>