Hi,
Sorry about that; I've suddenly come down with 2 different illnesses at once that have been plaguing me with brain fog for the past 2 weeks now, add in some turbulance with my IT setup recently and I didn't even see a response via email :(.
What I think is going on in your case is that if you were to do e.g:
touch ~/test.md
xdg-open ~/test.md
You'd possibly find that .MD
files don't open via xdg-open
. That's effectively the behaviour that must have been going on before you explicitly set Ghostscript as a the explicit external editor.
What I should have checked earlier is whether the buttons such as "Open Profile Directory" work in the app, because these too use xdg-open
. If they did work, it'd have hinted that it's specifically MD files sooner.
I'm not 100% sure with how xdg-open
actually identifies the applications to use, and it'll likely vary based on distribution to some extent. If I had to guess, it might be that the Ghostwriter you have installed hasn't registered .md
file format support in it's .desktop
entry (the file that adds it to the start menu). It could be trivial to override this on your end since there's a well supported user-override directory for it (~/.local/share/applications), and it's possible that if you explicitly stated it, and xdg-open picked up on it, the problem would go away without having to manually ghostwriter in Joplin, as well as potentially other apps.
Of course, there's no real downside to manually specifying it, presuming the rest of xdg-open
is working in Joplin as expected, which it looks like it is.
If you do fancy trying the .desktop
override let me know, otherwise I'll assume you're happy to have it working properly :).
@graphit0 reading Lee's comments above, I'd noticed he'd used the /AppRun
binary; given I do the snap I avoid that binary entirely and forgot it actually existed, I.E, the snap just calls the joplin-desktop/@joplinapp-desktop
binary directly, since it sets up its own environment variables.
What this means for your script is that, if you were using ./AppRun
rather than joplin-desktop/@joplinapp-desktop
, you'd probably be getting the environment wrapper that gets used without extraction anyway, keeping your script feature-for-feature (or bug-for-bug) identical, in which case my concerns in the other thread become moot. You get the CPU and IO gains (in exchange for some disk space) but shouldn't have any real bugs, assuming it works how I'd guess it would.