Thunderbird no longer viewing http URLs

Jose M Rodriguez josemi at freebsd.jazztel.es
Wed Feb 23 21:50:19 GMT 2005


El Miércoles, 23 de Febrero de 2005 21:50, Joe Marcus Clarke escribió:
> Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> | El Miércoles, 23 de Febrero de 2005 18:53, Joe Marcus Clarke 
escribió:
> |>Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> |>| El Miércoles, 23 de Febrero de 2005 09:35, Jose M Rodriguez
> |
> | escribió:
> |>|>El Miércoles, 23 de Febrero de 2005 09:16, Doug Barton escribió:
> |>|>>Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> |>|>>>You need repocopy
> |>|>>>files/patch-uriloader_exthandler_unix_nsGNOMERegistry.cpp from
> |>|>>>mozilla and rebuild. (You may need also this for firefox, it's
> |>|>>> a -core fix).
> |>|>>> 
<snip/>
> |
> | The main problem is that, after the uri patch, if you have gconf2
> | installed, the network.protocol-handler.app may don't work.
>
> I think it will if you set network.protocol-handler.external.http to
> false, and network.protocol-handler.expose.http to true.
>
> | This is only used if mozilla apps can't read gnome registry, and
> | I'm sure it doesn't work if you build with libgnomevf2 enabled.
>
> I think it will.

Well, I may not test all the cases, but I test what you point without 
success.  Also, the code seems point that, if it can be read from gnome 
registry, this takes precedence about the .app setup.

You must have the uri potocol exposed first.  After that, if this 
resolved as external, the gnome registry is used (if avaiable).  
The .app setup is only try if the gnome registry fails.

>
> | I'm not sure if the libgnomevfs2 depend is really need, but we
> | allready have a knob for this. Maybe better add a knob for only
> | enabled gconf2 RUN_DEPENDS.
>
> This was for SMB URIs as I recall.
>

It seems to improve general mime support. But I'm can't confirm this. 
I'm afraid that the name of the option was hide what we expect of the 
--disable-gnomevfs.

Also, I think this is more in the line of do 'official builds'.  We may 
'--enable-pango', but we must '--disable-gnomevfs'.

> | I'm not talking about take-off the knob, but on change it from
> | 'default disable' to 'default enabled'.  People really needing it
> | may build firefox without libgnomevfs support.
> |
> | The gconf based uri helper configuration is the only thing we can
> | 'safe document' in a FAQ.
>
> How is that?  What I listed above is "safe" to document.
>

Firts, auto-registration works in gconf.  After the first run of 
firefox, all gnome apps (included thunderbird) use firefox for http.

Second, as the gnome-registry is take in precedence to the .app option, 
I can document how to use gconf-editor to, as example, open the mailto: 
uris from firefox in kmail.

The problems to document the .app setup may come from:
- build firefox with the patch, but without vfs or gconf (nor installed)
- build and install gconf2
- add an .app option to point mailto to, let say, kmail

Open a mailto: and, if you get, let say, evolution instead of kmail, 
your're in troubles.

> | Also, the thunderbird->others case is more simple (http, https)
> | that the firefox->others case (mailto, news, callto, ...)
>
> Same thing as mailto above.
>
> | Other point in the gconf2 thing is the auto registration.  You
> | launch firefox and, if your gconf settings don't point to firefox
> | for http and so, a dialog appear to make 'firefox your default
> | browser', changing this to point at firefox.
>
> What's your point?  The way Firefox works is to dynamically load the
> libraries at run-time if present.  For non-GNOME users that don't
> want any GNOME integration can build Firefox with out it, and with
> some about:config hacking, get things to work.
>

I think you're missing the point.  mozilla apps (not only firefox) are 
becoming more and more gnome apps and use gconf for config.

You may also use other gnome apps in, let's say, KDE, but they still 
obey to gnome registry config, not KDE config.

I agree this is a real problem, and a unified desktop (or, at last, with 
less variants) may be of interest.  But this is out of this thread.

> I think all of this could probably be solved by coming up with some
> clear FAQ documentation.
>
> Joe
>

--
  josemi


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list