On Sep 19, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:36:52AM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:24:51AM +0200, Carsten Dominik wrote: >>> >>> On 19.9.2013, at 06:34, Nick Dokos wrote: >>> >>>> Carsten Dominik writes: >>>> >>>>> On 18.9.2013, at 14:14, Suvayu Ali wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>> I think that is expected. The bug is in the desktop specific open >>>>>> commands. Since you use none, generic open is used. That is simply a >>>>>> shell function, and does the right thing. >>>>> >>>>> Is there a generic open command in Linux? Why don't we use this instead? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not really. There is a shell function called open_generic inside of >>>> xdg-open. I believe that's what Suvayu was referring to. But there is >>>> no clean way of calling it, short of pulling it out of the xdg-open >>>> script into a new script: as a general solution, that's hopeless. >>> >>> All right. Too bad. Thank you. >> >> Nick said it accurately. It is part of the xdg-open script. > > I have some good news (sort of). We can force generic open by calling > xdg-open like this[1]: > > DE=generic xdg-open /path/to/file Hi Suvayu, interesting! How does this work? Is this setting an environment variable DE before it is run? The syntax looks unfamiliar to me. - Carsten > > I tested this with > > (start-process-shell-command "DE=generic xdg-open test.html" > nil "DE=generic xdg-open test.html") > > and it works well. Do you think this is acceptable? > > Cheers, > > > Footnotes: > > [1] > > -- > Suvayu > > Open source is the future. It sets us free.