| 2009-02-28 03:20:29 |
Steve Langasek |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2009-03-02 10:45:51 |
Chris Coulson |
gnome-desktop: bugtargetdisplayname |
gnome-desktop (Ubuntu) |
glib2.0 (Ubuntu) |
|
| 2009-03-02 10:45:51 |
Chris Coulson |
gnome-desktop: bugtargetname |
gnome-desktop (Ubuntu) |
glib2.0 (Ubuntu) |
|
| 2009-03-02 10:45:51 |
Chris Coulson |
gnome-desktop: statusexplanation |
|
This is almost certainly caused by glib, so re-assigning. |
|
| 2009-03-02 10:45:51 |
Chris Coulson |
gnome-desktop: title |
Bug #335712 in gnome-desktop (Ubuntu): "strange escape handling in Exec line of .desktop files" |
Bug #335712 in glib2.0 (Ubuntu): "strange escape handling in Exec line of .desktop files" |
|
| 2009-03-02 14:13:44 |
Chris Coulson |
glib2.0: bugtargetdisplayname |
glib2.0 (Ubuntu) |
gnome-desktop (Ubuntu) |
|
| 2009-03-02 14:13:44 |
Chris Coulson |
glib2.0: bugtargetname |
glib2.0 (Ubuntu) |
gnome-desktop (Ubuntu) |
|
| 2009-03-02 14:13:44 |
Chris Coulson |
glib2.0: statusexplanation |
This is almost certainly caused by glib, so re-assigning. |
And after looking at it again, I am almost certainly wrong. Re-assinging back. |
|
| 2009-03-02 14:13:44 |
Chris Coulson |
glib2.0: title |
Bug #335712 in glib2.0 (Ubuntu): "strange escape handling in Exec line of .desktop files" |
Bug #335712 in gnome-desktop (Ubuntu): "strange escape handling in Exec line of .desktop files" |
|
| 2009-03-12 22:58:29 |
Chris Coulson |
gnome-desktop: status |
New |
Confirmed |
|
| 2009-03-12 22:58:29 |
Chris Coulson |
gnome-desktop: importance |
Undecided |
Low |
|
| 2009-03-12 22:58:29 |
Chris Coulson |
gnome-desktop: statusexplanation |
And after looking at it again, I am almost certainly wrong. Re-assinging back. |
I've recreated this now. Steve, did you manually edit the Exec line of the desktop file? The only reason I ask is that I just created a fresh desktop file using gnome-desktop-item-edit, and entered the Exec line that you quoted, but gnome-desktop-item-edit doubled the number of backslashes in the unquoted string, so the desktop file actually worked correctly |
|
