Bug 315985 - --launcher.openFile does not work on Linux without running instance
Summary: --launcher.openFile does not work on Linux without running instance
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Equinox
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Launcher (show other bugs)
Version: 3.6   Edit
Hardware: PC Linux-GTK
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Project Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-06-07 09:32 EDT by Anton Leherbauer CLA
Modified: 2011-02-22 08:01 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

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

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Anton Leherbauer CLA 2010-06-07 09:32:51 EDT 
3.6 RC2

When I try to open a file using 

> eclipse /tmp/testFile.txt
or 
> eclipse --launcher.openFile /tmp/testFile.txt

Eclipse comes up, but no file is opened.
When I try the same command line a second time, still nothing happens.

If I launch eclipse normally with

> eclipse&

and then open a file using

> eclipse /tmp/testFile.txt

It works as expected.

Host OS: Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 4 (Nahant Update 8)
GTK: gtk2-2.4.13-24.el4
Comment 1 Andrew Niefer CLA 2010-06-14 16:40:39 EDT 
This works for me
Comment 2 Thomas Watson CLA 2010-11-02 16:40:58 EDT 
Have not been able to reproduce.  Is this still causing you issues.  If so please reopen.
Comment 3 Anton Leherbauer CLA 2010-11-03 07:19:30 EDT 
This still does not work for me, tried also 3.6.1 with the same result.
But it seems I am the only one.
Comment 4 Stephen White CLA 2010-11-25 08:55:34 EST 
It is possible that bug 315985 is the same issue as this, if for some reason Eclipse isn't finding the Java shared library on your system and is launching Java using the 'exec' method rather than JNI.  If that is the case then you may be able to work around the problem by changing the way you specify which JVM to use when launching Eclipse.
Comment 5 Stephen White CLA 2010-11-25 08:56:15 EST 
Sorry, wrong bug number.  I meant bug 331122.