open(1) removed from Debian? (was: 'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?)

Jerome Leclanche adys.wh at
Sat Dec 21 20:46:23 PST 2013

I have to agree. Regardless of the decision on xdg's side, the
debian-specific "open" binary shouldn't exist.
J. Leclanche

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Ma Xiaojun <damage3025 at> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Matthias Klumpp <mak at> wrote:
>> Btw, I don't find "I like open better" a good justification for
>> dropping it from kbd - you are asking essentially for an API break
>> which has unforseen consequences if we just swap some binary names on
>> shell, especially with shell-scripts which are not included in Debian.
> Given giant API breakage like making sh Dash instead of Bash or
> probably a init system change someday. I fail to see any reason to cry
> about this tiny little API change.
>> Standard is irrelevant here, as it is "just" a binary name, and
>> popularity is something to argue about.
> It is "just" a symbol link that exists for no merits.
> Have you read the open(1) ?
> Does it encourage people to use "open" at all?
> The history in the context of 1996 isn't boring, Ah?
>> I am not the kbd maintainer, so it's up to them to decide a rename (or
>> more precide, it's upstream's decision). I like "open" for files more
>> too, but unless kbd is the only user of that command, renaming it will
>> cause problems.
> It seems that kdb upstream is not claiming open(1); it's a Debian "extension".
> xdg doesn't have to claim open(1) overnight either. It's just that the
> current usage of open(1) is a waste of namespace.
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at

More information about the xdg mailing list