Hi,
Please see the attached eclass that allows us installation of plugins
for libre(open)office with some easy manner.
Any suggestions and improvements welcome.
Cheers
Tom
# Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
Hi Thomas,
Why EAPI=3 is not supported?
UNOPKG_BINARY=${EPREFIX}/usr/bin/unopkg
On my machine unopkg is at '/usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/unopkg'
(libreoffice-bin), so this can be a problem.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:11:31 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
# @ECLASS: openoffice.eclass
Ekhm.
Also I think, you should use 'openoffice' in the name anyway,
or 'libreoffice', or whatever suggesting the actual office packages
branch.
# @ECLASS-VARIABLE: OOO_EXTENSIONS
#
Dne 29.8.2011 09:20, Maxim Koltsov napsal(a):
Hi Thomas,
Why EAPI=3 is not supported?
I think we should always use the latest, and this is probably only way
how to force you lads to do so. Also it saves me from having to do
needless || die :)
You have any reason why require eapi3?
Dne 29.8.2011 09:24, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:11:31 +0200
Tomáš Chvátalscarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
# @ECLASS: openoffice.eclass
Ekhm.
Also I think, you should use 'openoffice' in the name anyway,
or 'libreoffice', or whatever suggesting the actual office packages
# @ECLASS-VARIABLE: OOO_EXTENSIONS
# @REQUIRED
# @DEFAULT_UNSET
I don't think you're supposed to mix these two.
Why? It make perfect sense, it is both required and empty by default.
Also git-2.eclass use the same and it works.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:39:16 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
# @ECLASS-VARIABLE: OOO_EXTENSIONS
# @REQUIRED
# @DEFAULT_UNSET
I don't think you're supposed to mix these two.
Why? It make perfect sense, it is both required and empty by default.
It is redundant. If a
2011/8/29 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org:
Dne 29.8.2011 09:20, Maxim Koltsov napsal(a):
Hi Thomas,
Why EAPI=3 is not supported?
I think we should always use the latest, and this is probably only way how
to force you lads to do so. Also it saves me from having to do needless ||
die :)
How about this attachment? :)
# Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
# @ECLASS: office-ext.eclass
# @MAINTAINER:
# The office team openoff...@gentoo.org
# @BLURB: Eclass for installing libreoffice/openoffice
Dne 29.8.2011 10:24, Maxim Koltsov napsal(a):
No reason, i just like backaward compability :)
But this is not backcompat this will be completely new and the packages
that will be added never were in main tree :-)
Done, https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381009
Thanks
2011/8/29 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org:
Dne 29.8.2011 10:24, Maxim Koltsov napsal(a):
No reason, i just like backaward compability :)
But this is not backcompat this will be completely new and the packages that
will be added never were in main tree :-)
Oh yes, you're right. I just
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:35:41 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
case ${EAPI:-0} in
4) OEXT_EXPORTED_FUNCTIONS=src_install pkg_postinst
pkg_prerm ;; *) die EAPI=${EAPI} is not supported ;;
esac
EXPORT_FUNCTIONS ${OEXT_EXPORTED_FUNCTIONS}
unset OEXT_EXPORTED_FUNCTIONS
--
Dne 29.8.2011 10:57, Maxim Koltsov napsal(a):
2011/8/29 Tomáš Chvátalscarab...@gentoo.org:
Dne 29.8.2011 10:24, Maxim Koltsov napsal(a):
No reason, i just like backaward compability :)
But this is not backcompat this will be completely new and the packages that
will be added never were in
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:23, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
Which Zope team is that? Would that be you? Having an overlay with
updated packages certainly sounds good, but it would be nice to have
some indication of what we're waiting for, or how long we're waiting.
Arfrever, it would
On 08/29/11 13:33, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:23, Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote:
Which Zope team is that? Would that be you? Having an overlay with
updated packages certainly sounds good, but it would be nice to have
some indication of what we're waiting for, or
On 29-08-2011 19:24:24 +, Nathan Phillip Brink wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:35:41AM +0200, Tom Chv??tal wrote:
How about this attachment? :)
# @FUNCTION: openoffice-ext_add_extension
# @DESCRIPTION:
# Install the extension into the office suite.
On 03:18 Fri 26 Aug , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this thread
that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the idea that
adding an application to the Gentoo tree that collects data from users
and sends it to a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29-08-2011 21:23, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
On 03:18 Fri 26 Aug , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I've picked this message as I want to address one point in this
thread that was focused on this sub-thread. I disagree with the
idea that
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote:
The point I was addressing is the suggestion that the above should be
possible and the idea that any single developer is entitled to do so.
It's a moot point, because no one (that I see) claimed or is
19 matches
Mail list logo
