Every time I try to view an image in a disposable, it starts a disposable qube, when that qube has started, it starts another and so on until I reboot. Nothing I tried can end this loop without a reboot.
I didn’t know where to post this as I don’t need support per say, but not sure I’m qualified to open an official bug report.
Yes, thank you for reporting. There’s already an issue for this phenomenon.
Thank you!
Two hints:
-
you can change the policy from
allow
toask
… that way you’ll
get a dom0 dialog which you can selectCancel
in and break the chain. -
I suspect you somehow set the MIME handler for images to
qvm-open-in-dvm in your disposable template… that would explain what
you are seeing.
It is indeed #2, but I found that even if I set a specific disposable for a disposable template, the created disposable always has itself as disposable instead of the one set for it’s template. Not a big deal but it might exacerbate this issue.
I was not aware of #1, I don’t know how to implement it but I’ll certainly look into it. Thanks for sharing!
Hey if a MOD wants to change the title of this thread to something more meaningfull, by all means please do.
@Gartech: I changed the title and moved the thread into ‘user support’. As for the policy open or create /etc/qubes/policy.d/30-user.policy
and modify/add these lines:
qubes.OpenInVM * @anyvm @dispvm ask
qubes.OpenInVM * @anyvm @anyvm ask
qubes.OpenURL * @anyvm @dispvm ask
qubes.OpenURL * @anyvm @anyvm ask
You can use default_target=
after the ask
to specify a qube to be pre-selected in the dom0 dialog.
Perfect thank you!
I checked to enable what you proposed as it seems perfect for my use case, but /etc/qubes/policy.d/30-user.policy
does not exist for me.
Shall I create it and append the lines?
Yes. Check also 90-deafult.policy
at the spot, maybe you get additional ideas too what else to put in 30-user.policy
. Since R4.1 it’s all in one place now.
typo
90-default.policy
to check the content
nano /etc/qubes/policy.d/90-default.policy
and here the whole documentation:
Corrected, thanks. I was dealing with the 99-zram.rules at the moment, and naturally…