To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=88700
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 25 11:58:02 +0000 2008 ------- So obr's data looks ideal for generating the arch string (it comes directly from THIS_OS and THIS_ARCH in sal), which is fine for e.g. the <platform value> tag, assuming that case doesn't matter, but the tricky issue of the Extension Identifier itself still needs some clarification. Now we have "the identifier MUST be unique. This is also the case when two extensions are logically the same but support different platforms." so is this indicating that an extension built from the same source for different archs has a different identifier (as in the identifier used to manipulate it with unopkg) on each arch ? The platforms that an extension supports are in that platform tag and we know our own platform, isn't that all that's required to figure out what's suitable to upgrade to ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
