FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-04-2008, 12:02 PM
Caolan McNamara
 
Default howto package openoffice.org extensions

I've added a little bit to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
to document the best recipe for installing and deinstalling
openoffice.org extensions to avoid some gotchas. The example taken is
that of writer2latex and also shows the (submitted upstream) enhancement
to register an extension by linking to an the unzipped package to avoid
the vanilla behaviour of copying the package during installation.

C.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-04-2008, 06:10 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default howto package openoffice.org extensions

Caolan McNamara wrote:

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:06 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Jan 4, 2008 4:02 AM, Caolan McNamara <caolanm@redhat.com> wrote:

I've added a little bit to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
to document the best recipe for installing and deinstalling
openoffice.org extensions



that's great guidance. can we work this into the packaging guidelines
as a special case?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
Section 40: Application Specific Guidelines


Sure, I hadn't sufficient mojo to edit that page of course, so feel free
to add a link to the extensions section or whack it into whereever it
should go.


Packaging Committee has instructions on changing the guidelines.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee

Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-04-2008, 06:16 PM
Caolan McNamara
 
Default howto package openoffice.org extensions

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:06 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 4:02 AM, Caolan McNamara <caolanm@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I've added a little bit to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
> > to document the best recipe for installing and deinstalling
> > openoffice.org extensions

> that's great guidance. can we work this into the packaging guidelines
> as a special case?
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
> Section 40: Application Specific Guidelines

Sure, I hadn't sufficient mojo to edit that page of course, so feel free
to add a link to the extensions section or whack it into whereever it
should go.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 10:12 AM
Alex Lancaster
 
Default howto package openoffice.org extensions

On Jan 4, 2008 4:02 AM, Caolan McNamara <caolanm@redhat.com> wrote:

[...]

>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
>>>> to document the best recipe for installing and deinstalling
>>>> openoffice.org extensions

[...]

>>>>> "RS" == Rahul Sundaram writes:

RS> Packaging Committee has instructions on changing the guidelines.
RS> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee

Caolan, do you have any best practices recommendations for the naming
of the openoffice.org extensions? It would be nice to add them to the
guidelines (then perhaps submit them to the packaging committee) e.g.,
I'd like to package ooolatex:

http://ooolatex.sourceforge.net/

and so should the package should (following the emacs-, python-,
perl-, R- convention) be called "openoffice.org-latex"? or should be
called "openoffice.org-ooolatex", or just "ooolatex"?

Also, will this particular extension, which is packaged as an .oxt
file, be able to be installed using the unopkg tool as suggested on
that page? i.e. are .oxt files intended to be installed using the
unopkg tool?

Any suggestions welcomed.

Alex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 10:33 AM
Caolan McNamara
 
Default howto package openoffice.org extensions

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 04:12 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote:
> Caolan, do you have any best practices recommendations for the naming
> of the openoffice.org extensions?

I've no real strong feelings one way or the other, I found it convenient
for e.g. writer2latex which had multiple subpackages where one of them
was the openoffice.org extension to call that subpackage
openoffice.org-FOO, I guess just use your own judgement here.

> Also, will this particular extension, which is packaged as an .oxt
> file, be able to be installed using the unopkg tool as suggested on
> that page? i.e. are .oxt files intended to be installed using the
> unopkg tool?

Oh yes, you can just do
unopkg add --shared OOoLatex-4.0.0-beta-2-linux.oxt
-env:JFW_PLUGIN_DO_NOT_CHECK_ACCESSIBILITY=1

or if you want to use the linking mechanism to avoid duplicating the
contents of that .oxt at registration time then you can use something
like

%install
unzip OOoLatex-4.0.0-beta-2-linux.oxt -d /usr/share/OOoLatex.uno.pkg

and then have ...

echo yes | unopkg add --shared --link /usr/share/OOoLatex.uno.pkg
-env:JFW_PLUGIN_DO_NOT_CHECK_ACCESSIBILITY=1

and

unopkg remove --shared net.sourceforge.ooolatex
-env:JFW_PLUGIN_DO_NOT_CHECK_ACCESSIBILITY=1

C.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 10:43 AM
Alex Lancaster
 
Default howto package openoffice.org extensions

>>>>> "CM" == Caolan McNamara writes:

CM> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 04:12 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote:
>> Caolan, do you have any best practices recommendations for the
>> naming of the openoffice.org extensions?

CM> I've no real strong feelings one way or the other, I found it
CM> convenient for e.g. writer2latex which had multiple subpackages
CM> where one of them was the openoffice.org extension to call that
CM> subpackage openoffice.org-FOO, I guess just use your own judgement
CM> here.

OK, I didn't realise that writer2latex had non-OOo components, but
that makes sense.

>> Also, will this particular extension, which is packaged as an .oxt
>> file, be able to be installed using the unopkg tool as suggested on
>> that page? i.e. are .oxt files intended to be installed using the
>> unopkg tool?

CM> Oh yes, you can just do unopkg add --shared
CM> OOoLatex-4.0.0-beta-2-linux.oxt
CM> -env:JFW_PLUGIN_DO_NOT_CHECK_ACCESSIBILITY=1

CM> or if you want to use the linking mechanism to avoid duplicating
CM> the contents of that .oxt at registration time then you can use
CM> something like

CM> %install unzip OOoLatex-4.0.0-beta-2-linux.oxt -d
CM> /usr/share/OOoLatex.uno.pkg

CM> and then have ...

CM> echo yes | unopkg add --shared --link /usr/share/OOoLatex.uno.pkg
CM> -env:JFW_PLUGIN_DO_NOT_CHECK_ACCESSIBILITY=1

CM> and

CM> unopkg remove --shared net.sourceforge.ooolatex
CM> -env:JFW_PLUGIN_DO_NOT_CHECK_ACCESSIBILITY=1

Thanks for the suggestions. Is the "net.sourceforge.ooolatex"
something you derived from the webpage, or is that somehow also in the
.oxt?

Also, in this case it appears that upstream insists on including some
binaries in the .oxt file (they don't seem to distribute a true
OS-independent source tarball)

so, for example, if you run:

unzip -l OOoLatex-4.0.0-beta-2-linux.oxt

then you get:

Length Date Time Name
-------- ---- ---- ----
931 11-03-07 09:05 AddonRegistry.xcs
1749 11-03-07 09:05 AddonRegistry.xcu
3091 10-22-07 12:17 Addons.xcu
5741 11-25-07 09:29 ChangeLogs.txt
430 11-25-07 09:38 Description.txt
754 11-28-07 13:57 description.xml
1119 11-03-07 09:00 README
1142 10-30-07 13:39 META-INF/manifest.xml
528 10-16-07 12:36 Office/UI/DrawWindowState.xcu
531 10-16-07 12:36 Office/UI/ImpressWindowState.xcu
530 10-16-07 12:36 Office/UI/WriterWindowState.xcu
2836 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexAbout.xba
7404 11-25-07 09:30 OOoLatex/OOoLatexConfig.xba
6686 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexConfig_Dlg.xba
14971 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexEquation.xba
6707 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexEquation_Dlg.xba
48258 11-28-07 13:57 OOoLatex/OOoLatexExpand.xba
6707 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexExpand_Dlg.xba
3377 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexPreamble_Dlg.xba
26656 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexSysConfig.xba
11871 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexTools.xba
2021 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexAbout_GUI.xdl
6525 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexConfig_GUI.xdl
5493 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexEquation_GUI.xdl
3539 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexExpand_GUI.xdl
729 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexInitExpand_GUI.xdl
2393 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexPreamble_GUI.xdl
5161 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/OOoLatexSysConfig_GUI.xdl
693 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/dialog.xlb
828 11-23-07 15:09 OOoLatex/script.xlb
18009 10-16-07 12:36 pkg-licence/gpl_GB.txt
21150 11-01-07 12:42 bin/Linuxi386/latex2emf
28692 11-01-07 12:43 bin/Linuxppc/latex2emf
710928 11-01-07 12:41 lib/i386/libEMF.so.1
717884 11-01-07 12:40 lib/ppc/libEMF.so.1
-------- -------
1676064 35 files

I assume the thing to do in the case is simply remove the files in
bin/ and lib/ after installing them in the %install section as you
describe above is the best way to deal with those? (libEMF is already
in Fedora, and I'd need to package latex2emf separately).

Alex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 10:56 AM
Caolan McNamara
 
Default howto package openoffice.org extensions

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 04:43 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. Is the "net.sourceforge.ooolatex"
> something you derived from the webpage, or is that somehow also in the
> .oxt?

Actually I just unopkg add'ed it and then unopkg list --shared and
looked at what was the name of the extra extension listed there to
figure out what OOoLaTeX called itself. I could probably have
alternatively found that out by grovelling through the code.

> Also, in this case it appears that upstream insists on including some
> binaries in the .oxt file (they don't seem to distribute a true
> OS-independent source tarball)
> 21150 11-01-07 12:42 bin/Linuxi386/latex2emf
> 28692 11-01-07 12:43 bin/Linuxppc/latex2emf
> 710928 11-01-07 12:41 lib/i386/libEMF.so.1
> 717884 11-01-07 12:40 lib/ppc/libEMF.so.1
> -------- -------
> 1676064 35 files
>
> I assume the thing to do in the case is simply remove the files in
> bin/ and lib/ after installing them in the %install section as you
> describe above is the best way to deal with those?

That should work I'd say, assuming that the package hasn't hardcoded
those paths into itself somewhere, pity that the upstream doesn't have a
pure source package but seeing as it just looks like a hack to have
latex2emf available for execution by some starbasic code we'll probably
get away with it.

C.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org