Closed Bug 1323666 Opened 8 years ago Closed 2 years ago

Please add Desktop Actions to the .desktop file

Categories

(Firefox :: Installer, enhancement, P3)

Product:
Firefox
Component:
Installer
Platform:
Desktop
Linux
Type:
enhancement

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 1824327

People

(Reporter: bigon, Unassigned, Mentored)

References

Details

(Keywords: good-first-bug)

Attachments

(1 file)

Add desktop action "open new tab"
(deleted), text/x-phabricator-request
Details
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
Component: General → Shell Integration
Hi, Any progress on this?
Bonjour Laurent! Nope but as it seems pretty easy, I would be happy to help you get that into the tree!
Mentor: sledru
Keywords: good-first-bug
Version: 50 Branch → unspecified
Hi, I am a new contributor and would like to work on this bug. Can I?
Sure, please give it a try!
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!
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.
Hello everyone, After some investigations, I think I am able to fix it by myself. Can this bug be assigned to me ?
(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.
Attached file Add desktop action "open new tab" (deleted) —
This patch adds a new Desktop Action, which allow users to open a new tab.
Attachment #9031246 - Attachment description: Add desktop action "open new tab". Fixes Bug 1323666 See the bug report here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1323666 → Add desktop action "open new tab". Fixes Bug 1323666See the bug report here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1323666
Attachment #9031246 - Attachment description: Add desktop action "open new tab". Fixes Bug 1323666See the bug report here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1323666 → Add desktop action "open new tab"
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?
Flags: needinfo?(jhford)
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.
Flags: needinfo?(jhford)
Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)
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.
Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)

I'm an outreachy applicant, I would like to work on this issue.

Type: defect → enhancement

I believe this is related to my old bug 296568.

Component: Shell Integration → Installer
Priority: -- → P3

Hey, Can I look into this bug!

(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.

If nobody is working on this, may i take up this bug?

What needs to be added to the new .desktop file?

Flags: needinfo?(mhowell)
Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)
Flags: needinfo?(mhowell)

(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.

Flags: needinfo?(mh+mozilla)

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?

Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
OS: Unspecified → Linux
Hardware: Unspecified → Desktop
Severity: normal → S3
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 years ago
Duplicate of bug: 1824327
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
See Also: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1824327 →
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: