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 don
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 "in
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 INS
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
> e
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
>>>
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
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
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, th
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
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
>
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 t
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 im
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
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 w
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 e
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 wha
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 bothe
Hi Lionel, *;
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane 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 discussion
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 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 settled on t
Hi,
I read the whole thread and tried to understand, "tried" because I'm not
enough "fluent" in these technical/internal LO part.
Why A2B must be quickly (I mean without waiting for next LO version)
"upgradable"?
Either it's stable and so we don't absolutely need to upgrade it quickly or
it's uns
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
> > wrote:
>
> >> I'm sorry we are losing your input on the design of the long-term
> >> solution
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:05 AM, David Tardon 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 be duplicate
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
