At 13:02 4-11-2011, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> As already mentioned briefly in my talk at LOCon, we need to make up
> our mind how to handle LO extension dependencies.
>
Skipping most of this -
> I'd tend to give the fine-grained dependencies a try.
>
That won't work in practice, unless those can be
(semi-)automatically generated. Experience shows that all
programmers are lazy, and seldomly go extra miles.
And all generalisations are true ;-)
Even those who would be willing to use fine-grained metadata
for dependencies would benefit from an automated check on these
data. It is easy to modify the source code in the extension and
then to forget to update the dependency metadata.
Best regards,
Christophe
Having a simple version string, and some volunteers testing uploaded
extensions on the extension repo sounds much more workable - and
useful in practice, since no syntactic compatibility one could come
up with would ensure semantic equality...
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
---
Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project
www.aegis-project.eu
---
Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social
networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
