On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:05 AM, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote:
IMHO there are just two alternatives: Either the code is ours, in
which case it should be an optional component and should only be updated
together with libreoffice. Or it is external, in which case the sources
should not
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 04:40:31PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 03:03:48PM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu
wrote:
I'm sorry we are losing your input on the design of the long-term
On 13/06/14 11:45, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:44:42AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
Anyway, since binary overriding isn't on the table yet my main
concern was with basic where you have can have Libraries deployed in
share by the enterprise, (...)
I'm not sure what
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:53:37AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
On 13/06/14 11:45, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:44:42AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
But, as I see this morning this discussion is a waste of my time,
seems that this change was already in, why even bother asking
Hi Lionel, *;
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:53:37AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
On 13/06/14 11:45, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:44:42AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
But, as I see this morning this
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 03:03:48PM +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
I'm sorry we are losing your input on the design of the long-term
solution in master (as opposed to the stop-gap that went in).
I think we already
://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Access2Base-New-release-tp4108421p4112581.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
On 12/06/14 16:16, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:55:05AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
On 28/05/14 12:11, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
you are just stating how you want it to work, it's not a
justification
No, that was my prediction from reading the code that implements
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 09:44:42AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
Anyway, since binary overriding isn't on the table yet my main
concern was with basic where you have can have Libraries deployed in
share by the enterprise, (...)
I'm not sure what deployed in share means. An extension installed
for
What I don't understand is why Access2Base needs to be bundled with LO
if it is developed on a so completely different schedule that there
will be new versions to install more often than LO is updated? But
then, I don't really personally care either way, especially as I am
*this* close to being on
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:53:23PM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
What I don't understand is why Access2Base needs to be bundled with
LO if it is developed on a so completely different schedule that
there will be new versions to install more often than LO is updated?
Well, need is a strong word.
On 13/06/2014 12:53, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
What I don't understand is why Access2Base needs to be bundled with LO
if it is developed on a so completely different schedule that there
will be new versions to install more often than LO is updated?
The rythm of major releases of Access2Base is twice
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:55:05AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
On 28/05/14 12:11, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:33:03PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 19/05/14 15:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
addition, but not replacement, especially not potentially
partial
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 05:16:45PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:55:05AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
In the binary case the possibilities should be clear. But even if
Libreoffice didn't ship any basic libraries as part of the core it
wouldn't change the fact that
On 28/05/14 12:11, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:33:03PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 19/05/14 15:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
addition, but not replacement, especially not potentially
partial replacement. with a bundled extension it would work to
replace it,
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:33:03PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 19/05/14 15:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
On 19/05/14 08:23, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 05/16/2014 06:39 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
So, the question is why
On 05/16/2014 06:39 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
I took a deeper look at it; actually, the problem is different. A
user-installed extension *is* allowed to override a Basic script (or
dialog) library from a *bundled* *extension*, or from a *system*
(installed as for all users) extension. *But*
On 19/05/14 08:23, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 05/16/2014 06:39 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
So, the question is why does this code enforce this condition, and
can we change it? Can we just remove the condition altogether, or
should we add this case:
||
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
On 19/05/14 08:23, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 05/16/2014 06:39 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
So, the question is why does this code enforce this condition,
and can we change it? Can we just remove the condition
altogether,
On 19/05/14 15:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
On 19/05/14 08:23, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 05/16/2014 06:39 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
[...]
So, the question is why does this code enforce this condition,
and can we change it?
On 19/05/14 14:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
[...]
Access2Base is considered a part of the core isn't it? it isn't
shipped as an extention, it is shipped as part of the product, (...)
Access2Base is either part of the product or it's
On 15/05/2014 12:30, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
one might hope that when loading the library, one source is
always preferred over the other.
After a test the behaviour of LibreOffice is found sane: when installing
an extension with the same name as a pre-installed one, the extension
gets
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Jean-Pierre Ledure wrote:
On 15/05/2014 12:30, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
one might hope that when loading the library, one source is
always preferred over the other.
After a test the behaviour of LibreOffice is found sane: when installing an
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 08:18:51AM +0200, Jean-Pierre Ledure wrote:
On 13/05/2014 10:13, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
I presume it is compliant with the LO release policy to push the same
patch also to the LO 4.2 branch ?
I don't think so; no new features, only bugfixes.
Can't an installation
On 13/05/2014 10:13, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
I presume it is compliant with the LO release policy to push the same
patch also to the LO 4.2 branch ?
I don't think so; no new features, only bugfixes.
Can't an installation as extension override the bundled one, or
something like that?
I
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 03:37:28PM +0200, Jean-Pierre Ledure wrote:
A new release of the Access2Base library (V1.1.0) has been pushed to master.
https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/9303
Let's say will be soon :)
Its main purpose is to get rid of the previous limitations: (...)
Additionally the
A new release of the Access2Base library (V1.1.0) has been pushed to master.
https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/9303
Its main purpose is to get rid of the previous limitations: 1 single
database, 1 single (data-aware) form located in Writer documents only, ...
From now on, simultaneous use of
27 matches
Mail list logo
