Re: mozilla and acrobat reader

[email protected] wrote:
> J.O. Aho <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>[email protected] wrote:
> 
> 
>>Okey, I have now solved one of your problems (after a small X crash that 
>>caused a bit of havoc in user settings)
> 
> 
>>To get acrobat reader to open inside mozilla, first you need the plugin placed 
>>in your plugins directory (that you already had), then you have to have 
>>acroread in your $PATH, if not then the Helper Application is used instead of 
> 
> 
> I have acrobat installed in /usr/local/Acrobat5 and the acroread program is
> sym linked to /usr/local/bin/acroread.  When I open an xterm and type "acroread"
> it comes up fine. I have this in my export PATH.... statement in my .profile.
> Is this good enough for Mozilla?
> 
> 
>>the plugin and the window is opened outside the mozilla window.
> 
> 
>>Found that on: http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux.html#Acrobat
> 
> 
>>Your error messages I haven't been able to generate. I guess you use gtk2, 
>>what happens if you use gtk+ instead? Just thinking if the gtk2 is causing this.
> 
> It seems so.
> 
> I compiled a version of mozilla using the settings for gtk1 and the pdf loaded
> with acroread inside mozilla fine.  Of course the fonts and general appearance
> was ugly compared to my xft/gtk2 version.

Why not compile xft/gtk, the only thing that don't look as "cool" is the form 
buttons. I have been using xft/gtk for a quite long time as xft/gtk2 used to 
break features in mozilla (now unix version of mozilla have none standard key 
combinations as to get around the bug in gtk2).
You have of course the option to make a qt version, but I have got quite a lot 
problems with it when it comes to the look (feature wize it seems to work okey).


> Nothing about my environment was different other than using the gtk1 version 
> of mozilla. Of course MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME and PATH where pointing toward the 
> gtk1 version.

I geuss this is worth a bug report, as it seems the gtk2-mozilla got more 
broken than usually.


> Curriously I still got similar errors and warnings as before. i.e.

Which source (date) do you use? More curious to avoid that version, myself I 
don't get that with 20050210.


  //Aho