Default Application for RPM files

[Steven Garrity]

I think that in FC1, the default application associated with RPMs was 
"Install Packages", but this doesn't seem to be the case in FC2.

As a result, if you end up with an RPM opened from a web browser or 
double-clicked from a folder, you get an alert about no default 
application being associated with it.

Is there a reason this changed? Is this true of FC2 in general, or have 
I accidentally changed something?

I realize that running rpms might not be the best way to install things, 
but it did work very nicely.

Thanks,
Steven Garrity

[Mariano Draghi]

Steven Garrity escribió:

>  I think that in FC1, the default application associated with RPMs was
>
>  "Install Packages", but this doesn't seem to be the case in FC2.
>  
>  As a result, if you end up with an RPM opened from a web browser or 
>  double-clicked from a folder, you get an alert about no default 
>  application being associated with it. 
[...]

I believe it has to do with the fact that the "official" or "standard"

MIME/type for the RPM extension is "Real Media" something.
So at some point it was decided to leave the .rpm files without 
asociation (an asociation with "Install Packages" would be non-standard, 
and an asociation with Real Media Player would be a mistake in a 
rpm-based distribution as FC2)

Regards,

-- 
Mariano

[Havoc Pennington]

On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:24, Mariano Draghi wrote:
>  
>  I believe it has to do with the fact that the "official" or
> "standard" 
>  MIME/type for the RPM extension is "Real Media" something.
>  So at some point it was decided to leave the .rpm files without 
>  asociation (an asociation with "Install Packages" would be non-standard, 
>  and an asociation with Real Media Player would be a mistake in a 
>  rpm-based distribution as FC2) 
That can't be right - we should be able to use sniffing anyhow, or at
least associate the ".arch.rpm" extension if not plain ".rpm"

Havoc

[Shahms King]

On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 14:27, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:24, Mariano Draghi wrote:
>  > 
>  > I believe it has to do with the fact that the "official" or
> "standard" 
>  > MIME/type for the RPM extension is "Real Media" something.
>  > So at some point it was decided to leave the .rpm files without 
>  > asociation (an asociation with "Install Packages" would be non-standard, 
>  > and an asociation with Real Media Player would be a mistake in a 
>  > rpm-based distribution as FC2)
>  
>  That can't be right - we should be able to use sniffing anyhow, or at
>  least associate the ".arch.rpm" extension if not plain ".rpm"
>  
>  Havoc 
The Real Player .rpm MIME Type (according to the RealPlayer mozilla
plugin) is: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin which means it's not "official"
or "standard", but is an extension.  Additionally, I have *never* seen
such a file in the wild, .ra and .ram, yes, but .rpm has always been an
application.
-- 
Shahms King <shahms(a)shahms.com&gt;

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi all,

I'm cross-posting this to the player-dev(a)helixcommunity.org list so that
we catch the Helix Player/RealPlayer dev team.

On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 15:22, Shahms King wrote:
>  The Real Player .rpm MIME Type (according to the RealPlayer mozilla
>  plugin) is: audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin which means it's not "official"
>  or "standard", but is an extension.  Additionally, I have *never* seen
>  such a file in the wild, .ra and .ram, yes, but .rpm has always been an
>  application. 
.rpm associated with RealPlayer was designed to be used in HTML <object>
and <embed> tags.  .rpm stood for "RealAudio Plugin Metafile" at the
time of its design in 1995.

I'm not sure if it's needed outside of that context to play all
presentations out there designed for RealPlayer.  The tricky part is
that if we've ever had a player that generally claimed the MIME type
(probably), that means that at least one misguided author has authored a
presentation that relies on that broader support (for example, putting
<a href="http://example.com/foo.rpm">my dog spot eating dirt</a>) . 
So,
removing that support may make some presentations break.

Rob
-- 
Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks
Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org 
Development Support:
http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport

[Steven Garrity]

Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:24, Mariano Draghi wrote:
>  
> >I believe it has to do with the fact that the "official" or
> "standard" 
> >MIME/type for the RPM extension is "Real Media" something.
> >So at some point it was decided to leave the .rpm files without 
> >asociation (an asociation with "Install Packages" would be non-standard, 
> >and an asociation with Real Media Player would be a mistake in a 
> >rpm-based distribution as FC2)
>  
>  That can't be right - we should be able to use sniffing anyhow, or at
>  least associate the ".arch.rpm" extension if not plain ".rpm" 
Should I file a bug on this?

Steven Garrity

[Havoc Pennington]

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 11:08, Steven Garrity wrote:
>  Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:24, Mariano Draghi wrote:
>  > 
>  >>I believe it has to do with the fact that the "official" or
> "standard" 
>  >>MIME/type for the RPM extension is "Real Media" something.
>  >>So at some point it was decided to leave the .rpm files without 
>  >>asociation (an asociation with "Install Packages" would be
> non-standard, 
>  >>and an asociation with Real Media Player would be a mistake in a 
>  >>rpm-based distribution as FC2)
>  > 
>  > That can't be right - we should be able to use sniffing anyhow, or at
>  > least associate the ".arch.rpm" extension if not plain ".rpm"
>  
>  Should I file a bug on this?
>   
Yeah, presumably vs. system-config-packages

Havoc

[Steven Garrity]

Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 11:08, Steven Garrity wrote:
> >Should I file a bug on this?
> >
>  
>  Yeah, presumably vs. system-config-packages 
Two bugs already filed (maybe dups?):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120276
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123242

Steven Garrity

[Mariano Draghi]

Steven Garrity escribió:

>  Havoc Pennington wrote:
>  
> > On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 11:08, Steven Garrity wrote:
> >
> >> Should I file a bug on this?
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, presumably vs. system-config-packages
>  
>  
>  Two bugs already filed (maybe dups?):
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120276
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123242
>   
The program asociation was ok under FC1. Is it possible that it was 
broken because of some Freedesktop.org and/or Gnome upstream issue as 
regards MIME types, and KDE/Gnome integration?
If I remember correctly, FC1 (at least the Gnome version shiped with 
it...) didn't use the Freedesktop.org mime types.
If that is the case, this should be fixed upstream, shouldn't it?

-- 
Mariano