Dne 30.8.2011 09:49, Michał Górny napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:26:16 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
# @FUNCTION: office-ext_remove_extension
[...]
${UNOPKG_BINARY} remove --shared "${ext}" \
Not sure what unopkg accepts, but I guess you want to pass several
arguments here. So ${ext}
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:26:16 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> >> # @FUNCTION: office-ext_remove_extension
> >> [...]
> >>${UNOPKG_BINARY} remove --shared "${ext}" \
> >
> > Not sure what unopkg accepts, but I guess you want to pass several
> > arguments here. So ${ext} shouldn't be quoted.
> >
>
Dne 30.8.2011 09:02, Ulrich Mueller napsal(a):
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
See the attachment for the latest version :)
# @FUNCTION: office-ext_get_implementation
[...]
for i in "${implementations[$@]}"; do
I think this should read "${implementations[@]}" instead, if
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> See the attachment for the latest version :)
> # @FUNCTION: office-ext_get_implementation
> [...]
> for i in "${implementations[$@]}"; do
I think this should read "${implementations[@]}" instead, if the
intention is to loop over all array e
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() {
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_
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 ${FUNCNAME} "$@"
>
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
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
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
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
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:
#
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
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
# @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.
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
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_
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
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.
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: $
20 matches
Mail list logo
