Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:55:55 +0900 From: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Thunderbird no longer viewing http URLs Message-ID: <421D504B.3060109@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <421CC2FE.2080105@FreeBSD.org> References: <421C1A19.5060805@freebsd.org> <421C3BF5.70803@freebsd.org> <200502230935.24944.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> <200502231141.29161.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> <421CC2FE.2080105@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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. 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?421D504B.3060109>