Thunderbird no longer viewing http URLs

[Jose M Rodriguez]

El Jueves, 24 de Febrero de 2005 04:55, Doug Barton escribió:
> 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.  
Without the patch, mozilla take the gnome registry as invalid and try 
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 
gconf2 installed (that maybe from other app depends), the gnome 
registry is declared valid and take precedence over .app settings.

I think we must document what mozilla.org have declared the default way.  

If we don't make the packages RUN_DEPENDS on gconf, the faq must point 
to install gconf2 (or gconf-editor. which allready depends on gconf2)
 
> 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 
remember have qt builds.  I'm not so sure that building a gtk20 app 
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

--
  josemi