Skip to content

Can this xdg-email be useful outside a sandbox? #30

@smcv

Description

@smcv

As mentioned in https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-February/msg00064.html I wonder whether this xdg-email implementation would be useful even in non-sandboxed contexts. As long as xdg-desktop-portal is installed, a container framework like Flatpak or Snap is not actually required - host programs can equally well talk to xdg-desktop-portal via D-Bus themselves.

As noted in https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2019-February/msg00057.html, the reference implementation of xdg-email (the big shell script) is brittle and full of special cases, so programs that want to send email via a CLI might be better off using this one than the shell script.

I've packaged flatpak-xdg-utils for Debian 10, to make it more straightforward to build Flatpak runtimes out of Debian 10+
packages (conceptually similar to Fedora's runtimes). At the moment the flatpak-xdg-utils tools are installed into /usr/libexec rather than onto the PATH, and containers that want them in the PATH are expected to create their own symlinks, but there's no reason there couldn't be a symlink at /usr/bin/xdg-desktop-portal-email or something.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions