After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 785014 - Allow starting scripts from nautilus like starting other binaries
Allow starting scripts from nautilus like starting other binaries
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 742935
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: Views: All
3.14.x
Other All
: Normal major
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2017-07-17 08:29 UTC by Jens Reimann
Modified: 2017-07-17 09:44 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Jens Reimann 2017-07-17 08:29:56 UTC
Double clicking on an ELF binary with the execute bit set starts the application. Double clicking on a shell script with the execute bit set opens up gedit.

Now as many applications (which are provided outside of gnome) provide shell scripts for starting them up, this means that every time you need to open a shell, navigate to this directory and start it manually.

My expectation would be that, if a file has the exec bit set, Nautilus would start up that application instead of opening the file for editing, as the default action for a shell script with the execute bit set it most likely to actually run it. Nautilus could still provide an "edit" option in the context menu. And maybe also pop up some dialog saying "You are about to start this script".

This is not only related to the desktop but also to the file manager views.
Comment 1 Carlos Soriano 2017-07-17 09:07:53 UTC
I never understood this either. I have the feeling is because you have no feedback when running a shell script that it's actually doing something, but the same could be said about a binary file withouth UI.

Cosimo, do you know?
Comment 2 Ernestas Kulik 2017-07-17 09:35:32 UTC
Duplicate of 742935, but this can probably be discussed again.
Comment 3 Carlos Soriano 2017-07-17 09:44:25 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 742935 ***