Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
Dne 29.8.2011 21:24, Nathan Phillip Brink napsal(a): 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. openoffice-ext_add_extension() {

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

2011-08-29 Thread Matt Turner
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto 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 claiming to be entitled

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

2011-08-29 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
-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 th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoostats, SoC 2011

2011-08-29 Thread Donnie Berkholz
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 c

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Fabian Groffen
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. > > openoffice-ext_

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Nathan Phillip Brink
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. > openoffice-ext_add_extension() { > debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "$@" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-zope maintenance

2011-08-29 Thread Patrick Lauer
On 08/29/11 13:33, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:23, Dirkjan Ochtman 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] net-zope maintenance

2011-08-29 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 09:23, Dirkjan Ochtman 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 be nice if y

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
Dne 29.8.2011 10:57, Maxim Koltsov napsal(a): 2011/8/29 Tomáš Chvátal: 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:35:41 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal 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 -- Best re

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Maxim Koltsov
2011/8/29 Tomáš Chvátal : > 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 feel some kind

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
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 # @BLURB: Eclass for installing libreoffice/openoffice extensions # @DESCRIPTION: #

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Maxim Koltsov
2011/8/29 Tomáš Chvátal : > 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:39:16 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal 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 variable is

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
# @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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
Dne 29.8.2011 09:24, Michał Górny napsal(a): On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:11:31 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal 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-VARIA

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
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? UNOPKG_

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:11:31 +0200 Tomáš Chvátal 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 > # @REQUIRED > # @DEFAULT

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Maxim Koltsov
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.

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] office-ext.eclass

2011-08-29 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
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: $