Please add Desktop Actions to the .desktop file
Categories
(Firefox :: Installer, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: bigon, Unassigned, Mentored)
References
Details
(Keywords: good-first-bug)
Attachments
(1 file)
Hi, In Fedora, the .desktop file contains Desktop Actions to allow opening private browing window directly from the desktop, see [0]. Windows version is already allowing this. Would be nice to the have the same in the other distribution, so it might be a good idea to merge this upstream. [0] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/firefox.git/tree/firefox.desktop
Updated•7 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•6 years ago
|
||
Hi, Any progress on this?
Comment 2•6 years ago
|
||
Bonjour Laurent! Nope but as it seems pretty easy, I would be happy to help you get that into the tree!
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 3•5 years ago
|
||
Hi, I am a new contributor and would like to work on this bug. Can I?
Comment 4•5 years ago
|
||
Sure, please give it a try!
Comment 5•5 years ago
|
||
Sure. So, as I see in the comments. Laurent wants us to have desktop actions to open it in private mode for other distributions. What other distribution means here exactly? Can I get a little insight before I give a try and fix this? I am a new contributor here. Thank You!
Comment 6•5 years ago
|
||
Hello, Some distributions (tested on Fedora and Solus) enable desktop actions thanks to patches. If you integrate such patches, then it would allow other distros to benefit from it as well! Additionally, I suggest to add a "new tab" custom action. This can be done using the command `firefox --new-tab <url>`, or better `firefox --new-tab about:home`. Ps : this is my first comment on this bugzilla, so tell me if you need more information.
Comment 7•5 years ago
|
||
Hello everyone, After some investigations, I think I am able to fix it by myself. Can this bug be assigned to me ?
Comment 8•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Léo Pourcelot from comment #7) > Hello everyone, > After some investigations, I think I am able to fix it by myself. Can this > bug be assigned to me ? We normally assign bugs to new contributors when they put up a patch. It would be great if you could submit your proposed fix, see also https://moz-conduit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/phabricator-user.html for how to do so.
Comment 9•5 years ago
|
||
This patch adds a new Desktop Action, which allow users to open a new tab.
Updated•5 years ago
|
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 10•5 years ago
|
||
John, you created these RPM files a while ago, did we get anywhere with those? (see https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D14484#371130). Should we maybe remove them and the rules to create a rpm?
Comment 11•5 years ago
|
||
The RPMs were part of a project I had been running which was to build an Apt/Yum repository for official binary releases from Mozilla. The RPM support in our packaging scripts can probably be removed at this point. The .desktop file mentioned here, though, is actually part of the Fedora Project's repository for their packaging scripts. This isn't really the right bug tracker for this work, I think. https://bugzilla.redhat.com is probably the right one.
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 12•5 years ago
|
||
As a matter of fact, the .desktop file for the Fedora package does have Actions for new windows and new private window, and translations, so they are not, in fact, using the in-tree file. Their file is: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/blob/master/f/firefox.desktop Debian uses a different file: https://salsa.debian.org/mozilla-team/firefox/blob/release/master/debian/browser.desktop.in Other distros probably have their own too. It's kind of sad that we don't have a single .desktop file, and maybe we should have one. But in a different form to what we currently have. Considering John's answer, I'd say what should happen is: - Remove toolkit/mozapps/installer/linux/rpm and the corresponding code in toolkit/mozapps/installer/upload-files.mk - Add a fresh .desktop file, combining the best parts from downstreams, and make `make install` install it to $prefix/share/applications.
Comment 13•5 years ago
|
||
I'm an outreachy applicant, I would like to work on this issue.
Updated•5 years ago
|
Comment 14•4 years ago
|
||
I believe this is related to my old bug 296568.
Updated•4 years ago
|
Updated•4 years ago
|
Comment 15•4 years ago
|
||
Hey, Can I look into this bug!
Comment 16•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Surya Shankar from comment #15)
Hey, Can I look into this bug!
Sure! Comment 12 here has some info on what needs to be done, but I'd highly recommend coordinating with :glandium before getting too far in.
Comment 17•4 years ago
|
||
If nobody is working on this, may i take up this bug?
Comment 18•4 years ago
|
||
What needs to be added to the new .desktop file?
Updated•4 years ago
|
Comment 19•4 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jayati Shrivastava from comment #18)
What needs to be added to the new .desktop file?
As per comment 12, someone should check the .desktop files downstream (I'd check Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora, maybe Suse, Archlinux and/or Gentoo), take them apart, and pick the best parts of each.
Comment 20•4 years ago
|
||
Looked at CentOS, Fedora, Debian, openSUSE, SUSE and Gentoo. They are in principle all rather similar. Fedora seems to most complete, only lacking a few name and comment translations (present in debian for example).
The only thing to note here is, that Gentoo and openSUSE/SUSE use placeholders in their .desktop-file for various variables, e.g.:
Name=@NAME@
Exec=@EXEC@ %u
Icon=@ICON@
StartupNotify=@STARTUP_NOTIFY@
or
Name=%NAME
TryExec=%EXEC
Exec=%EXEC %u
Icon=%ICON
which get replaced during build with the appropriate content (sed "s:%%NAME:%{appname}:g
), whereas Debian and Fedora/CentOS have those hardcoded.
So question would be, if upstream would want placeholders in their desktop-file or not?
Updated•4 years ago
|
Updated•2 years ago
|
Updated•11 months ago
|
Description
•