Clicking on a link in e-mail body does not launch browser, nor does right-click "launch in browser". Looks like epiphany %s is the deafult, although it seems to be not installed on a Personal Workstation install.
Right clicking on IMAP folder in tree-view does not produce a pop-up menu allowing me to add my IMAP INBOX to the shortcut bar.
Anyone else getting these errors?
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 10:44, Will Backman wrote:
Clicking on a link in e-mail body does not launch browser, nor does right-click "launch in browser". Looks like epiphany %s is the deafult, although it seems to be not installed on a Personal Workstation install.
Yep, and got it fixed. Mozilla is not selected as the default browser in file types and programs, even if epiphany or whatever isn't even installed. I think that is a bug. But you have to go to preferences/file types and programs and edit internet/http and https and add ftp if you want the links to work.
This bug has been around since FC2 Test 1, and I have been waiting to see if it got fixed in test 2. (no luck there...) You guys hit the problem on the head. gnome-default-applications-properties is set up out of the box (off of the ISO?) with epiphany as the default browser. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default. As mentioned below, you can fix the problem of not being able to click on web links in an email by:
1) installing epiphany - yum install epiphany
or
2) opening up gnome-default-applications-properties and changing epiphany %s to mozilla %s (or any other browser that is actually installed on the computer.
Filed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119569 so feel free to hop on!
-Sean :)
On Mar 30, 2004, at 8:51 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 10:44, Will Backman wrote:
Clicking on a link in e-mail body does not launch browser, nor does right-click "launch in browser". Looks like epiphany %s is the deafult, although it seems to be not installed on a Personal Workstation install.
Yep, and got it fixed. Mozilla is not selected as the default browser in file types and programs, even if epiphany or whatever isn't even installed. I think that is a bug. But you have to go to preferences/file types and programs and edit internet/http and https and add ftp if you want the links to work.
I'm trying to ssh to the newly installed FC2 test2...
I'm not a t the box right now, so I cant double check the network settings, but every thing should have been fine. Its getting the DHCP info from a Linksys box, which also gives out address for 4 other box's I have.. When I installed last night, i did ssh out of that box, to both of my other linux boxes ( both running fc1 ). I have cleared the .ssh/known_hosts of entries that were created when fc2 test 1 was on this box.
2 fc1 boxes get the same message below selinux is enabled
============ [root@myhost root]# ssh 192.168.1.104 ssh: connect to host 192.168.1.104 port 22: No route to host
[root@myhost root]# ping -c 1 192.168.1.104 PING 192.168.1.104 (192.168.1.104) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.292 ms
--- 192.168.1.104 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.292/0.292/0.292/0.000 ms, pipe 2 ============
If this looks like it is not something to do with fc2 test 2, I can try to figure it out on some other list..
Scott
The default firewall on Fedora 1 does this, so I presume the same silly settings exist on FC2 test. Stop iptables, and try again:
service iptables stop
R. Scott Baer wrote:
I'm trying to ssh to the newly installed FC2 test2...
I'm not a t the box right now, so I cant double check the network settings, but every thing should have been fine. Its getting the DHCP info from a Linksys box, which also gives out address for 4 other box's I have.. When I installed last night, i did ssh out of that box, to both of my other linux boxes ( both running fc1 ). I have cleared the .ssh/known_hosts of entries that were created when fc2 test 1 was on this box. 2 fc1 boxes get the same message below selinux is enabled
============ [root@myhost root]# ssh 192.168.1.104 ssh: connect to host 192.168.1.104 port 22: No route to host
[root@myhost root]# ping -c 1 192.168.1.104 PING 192.168.1.104 (192.168.1.104) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.292 ms
--- 192.168.1.104 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.292/0.292/0.292/0.000 ms, pipe 2 ============
If this looks like it is not something to do with fc2 test 2, I can try to figure it out on some other list..
Scott
Thanks Joe,
I'll try this when I get home.. I'm hoping this is not the case, because I picked to install with no firewall. So it shouldn't enable anything for me.
Thanks for the reply,
Scott
Joe Cooper wrote:
The default firewall on Fedora 1 does this, so I presume the same silly settings exist on FC2 test. Stop iptables, and try again:
service iptables stop
R. Scott Baer wrote:
I'm trying to ssh to the newly installed FC2 test2...
I'm not a t the box right now, so I cant double check the network settings, but every thing should have been fine. Its getting the DHCP info from a Linksys box, which also gives out address for 4 other box's I have.. When I installed last night, i did ssh out of that box, to both of my other linux boxes ( both running fc1 ). I have cleared the .ssh/known_hosts of entries that were created when fc2 test 1 was on this box. 2 fc1 boxes get the same message below selinux is enabled
============ [root@myhost root]# ssh 192.168.1.104 ssh: connect to host 192.168.1.104 port 22: No route to host
[root@myhost root]# ping -c 1 192.168.1.104 PING 192.168.1.104 (192.168.1.104) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.104: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.292 ms
--- 192.168.1.104 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.292/0.292/0.292/0.000 ms, pipe 2 ============
If this looks like it is not something to do with fc2 test 2, I can try to figure it out on some other list..
Scott
I hadn't tried this, but I was disappointed to see evolution reverted back to 1.4. Though I didn't like some of the changes in evo 2.0 (the button bar is ugly compared with the old icon side-bar, and I liked the summary page myself). On the other hand, some of the new features, like multiple calendars, were quite nice.
I did notice that epiphany isn't in the default install. the first thing I always do is install epiphany.
thanks, noah silva
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Will Backman wrote:
Clicking on a link in e-mail body does not launch browser, nor does right-click "launch in browser". Looks like epiphany %s is the deafult, although it seems to be not installed on a Personal Workstation install.
Right clicking on IMAP folder in tree-view does not produce a pop-up menu allowing me to add my IMAP INBOX to the shortcut bar.
Anyone else getting these errors?
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:50, Noah Silva [Mailing list] wrote:
I hadn't tried this, but I was disappointed to see evolution reverted back to 1.4. Though I didn't like some of the changes in evo 2.0 (the button bar is ugly compared with the old icon side-bar, and I liked the summary page myself). On the other hand, some of the new features, like multiple calendars, were quite nice.
Current Evolution still will not let you paste into the subject field of a new mail message. Bummer.
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 16:50, Noah Silva [Mailing list] wrote:
I hadn't tried this, but I was disappointed to see evolution reverted back to 1.4. Though I didn't like some of the changes in evo 2.0 (the button bar is ugly compared with the old icon side-bar, and I liked the summary page myself). On the other hand, some of the new features, like multiple calendars, were quite nice.
I believe the reasoning was that Evo 2 won't be ready in time for FC2. The development tree is far to flakey to include in a full release, IMHO.
As for multiple calendars, you can do that in Evo 1.4, unless I misunderstand what you mean by multiple calendars.