On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/21/13 10:05 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>>> The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is >>>>> contained at all. Something like "unzip -l <extension> | grep >>>>> Addons.xcu" should be enough. The second step if an >>>>> Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the "<node >>>>> oor:name="OfficeToolBar">" entry. Only if this entry exists >>>>> the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. >> >> This might be error prone, because the file can have any name, all >> it matters is the media type in the META-INF manifest and the OO >> registry package and name in the file itself. >> >> While it's highly rare to find a lala.lala, I've found an >> "addons.xcu" (in lowercase). No wonder there is no OfficeToolBar in >> this particular extension, but the extension does not work in AOO >> 4.0 due to API changes (what shows that the whole discussion >> centered on the schema change is full of ungrounded assumptions, >> and lack of knowledge on the subject). > > ignore case is probably a good idea, a complete different name is > probably rather seldom. But from a technical point of view you are > correct. > > We don't need exact data but it would be nice to get an impression how > often it is used. > > Juergen > >> >> >>>> 242 extensions contain addons.xcu stensioni (total: 1065 >>>> releases), 430 estensions don't (total: 1660 releases). Do you >>>> want us to check how many contain OfficeToolBar? >>> >>> If you could run a short script to check it, it would be very >>> useful for us to make a final decision.
Officetoolbar used within 137 extensions (553 releases). >>> >>> Maybe you can also provide some numbers about their downloads. >>> Only th extensions that contain an Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar That's not really trivial, but it would be easier to figure out how many among top 50 contain Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar. Would it make the trick? If not I'll work on how to compute those numbers. Let me know, Roberto >> It would also be interesting to know the last time the extension >> was updated; besides that expecting unmaintained extensions to work >> on a new major release might not be plausible, the extension is >> likely not be adapted to any change if it is unmaintained, no >> matter how popular it is (example: the most popular, Oracle PDF >> Import Extension, Downloads: Week: 12,706, unmaintained since Dec. >> 2010, seems to be broken - according to the first three comments). >> >> >> Regards >> > -- ==== This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
