Bug 71096 – There is no default .rpm file extension association

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.

Bug 71096 - There is no default .rpm file extension association

Summary:	There is no default .rpm file extension association

Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 52658

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Public Beta
Classification:	Retired
Component:	redhat-config-packages (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	limbo
Hardware:	i386 Linux

Priority	medium Severity low
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jeremy Katz
QA Contact:	David Lawrence
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2002-08-08 14:33 EDT by Celso K. Webber
Modified:	2007-04-18 12:45 EDT (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2002-08-11 20:42:59 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Celso K. Webber 2002-08-08 14:33:34 EDT

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 Galeon/1.2.0 (X11; Linux i686; U;) Gecko/20020408

Description of problem:
Since this is a desktop targeted distribution, there should be a default
application handler for the ".rpm" file extension (MIME Type).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Insert a CD-ROM
2.Wait until Nautilus come up with the CD contents
3.Navigate to RedHat/RPMS directory and double-click any RPM file
	

Actual Results:  Sawfish asks for a application to handle the RPM file.

Expected Results:  There should be a default RPM file type handler configured
for the user.

Additional info:

Comment 1 Chris Runge 2002-08-11 20:42:54 EDT

dup of bug 52658?

Comment 2 Jonathan Blandford 2002-08-12 16:46:09 EDT

yes

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 52658 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.