Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 99899
OOO310_m4: bogus writer2latex version
Last modified: 2009-03-26 16:07:50 UTC
Issue 99417 "fixed" witer2latex packaging and in the process completels broke its version: -packageversion = "0.5.0.2" +packageversion = "0.5.2" umm, no, that's broken. The version of writer2latex *IS* 0.5.0.2. See writer2latex' homepage (http://writer2latex.sourceforge.net/) and this: rene@mini:~/OpenOffice.org/cws/configure24/writer2latex/download$ ls writer2latex0502.zip If you changed it for some upgrade or whatever reason, please do something else, but do not break version numbers. writer2latex is external and has a external version number which should not be changed.
@ rene: Where can I find this broken version information? Please announce this issue as a stopper at the releases list.
> @ rene: Where can I find this broken version information? [...] setup_native/source/packinfo/packinfo_office.txt > Please announce this issue as a stopper at the releases list. Already added it as dependency of the meta-issue. This is so obviously a stopper that I didn't bother to mail releases@
@ is: Please have a look.
You used the variable "packageversion" that is used as version for RPMs, Solaris packages, ... This can only contain the format: "major.minor.micro". So the OOo 310 m4 contains a package with the correct name: openoffice.org3-writer2latex-0.5.2-9388.i586.rpm "0.5.2" is the version of the package, not of the oxt file (that of course is not influenced by the usage of "packageversion"). By the way: All other packages have the packageversion "3.1.0". If you do not like "0.5.2" I would suggest to use the "3.1.0". Additionally I changed the name to "openoffice.org3-writer2latex" instead of "ooobasis3.1-writer2latex" because the package content is written into the brand layer instead of the basis layer. So I would fix this by introducing the automatically generated packageversion "3.1.0". How do you think about this?
> You used the variable > "packageversion" > that is used as version for RPMs, Solaris packages, ... > This can only contain the format: > "major.minor.micro". Eh, what? Solaris cannot handle more digits? the rpms in m3 *have* 0.5.0.2 correct. Anyway, then the correct fix would be 0.5.0, not 0.5.2 > So the OOo 310 m4 contains a package with the correct name: > openoffice.org3-writer2latex-0.5.2-9388.i586.rpm It did in m3, too (with 0.5.0.2). And 0.5.2 is NOT correct. > "0.5.2" is the version of the package, not of the oxt file (that of course is > not influenced by the usage of "packageversion"). Eh, yes, and? You want o claim you ship a writer2latex 0.5.2 which doesn't exist? > By the way: All other packages have the packageversion "3.1.0". > If you do not like "0.5.2" I would suggest to use the "3.1.0". I suggest 0.5.0. Because that's what the version of writer2latex is. writer2latex is not 3.1.0 because it's not coming from OOo, it's just taken from Henriks site. > Additionally I changed the name to "openoffice.org3-writer2latex" instead of > "ooobasis3.1-writer2latex" because the package content is written into the > brand layer instead of the basis layer. That is correct. > So I would fix this by introducing the automatically generated packageversion > "3.1.0". How do you think about this? See above. *If* you needs to scrutinize the version, just stip the .2 and use 0.5.0...
> Eh, what? Solaris cannot handle more digits? the rpms in m3 *have* 0.5.0.2 correct. > Anyway, then the correct fix would be 0.5.0, not 0.5.2 Of course the m3 contains the string 0.5.0.2, but this is not allowed. I suppose the fourth number will simply be ignored by rpm, so that the update will not work correctly, if you change from "0.5.0.2" to "0.5.0.x". > Eh, yes, and? You want o claim you ship a writer2latex 0.5.2 which doesn't exist? Well, I have to admit, that it was not a good idea to change from 0.5.0.2 to 0.5.2, which has no context to our other packages (like 0.5.0, too). > I suggest 0.5.0. Because that's what the version of writer2latex is. > writer2latex is not 3.1.0 because it's not coming from OOo, it's just taken from Henriks site. > See above. *If* you needs to scrutinize the version, just stip the .2 and use 0.5.0... We should not mix up two different things: The version of the package, and the version of the files it contains. All packages containing oxt files have the version 3.1.0, although probably no oxt file has this version. The same with all our libraries. In my opinion the oxt file version should not influence the package version, so that "3.1.0" is the only correct package version.
> We should not mix up two different things: The version of the package, and the > version of the files it contains. All packages containing oxt files have the > version 3.1.0, although probably no oxt file has this version. The same with all IMHO that's a bug, too. But unfortunately many of the dicts (and that's what the oxt is you mean) have no clear version. If the SRB etc. would be packaged, i'd argue for them to carry the correct version, too. >our libraries. In my opinion the oxt file version should not influence the > package version, so that "3.1.0" is the only correct package version. The only content of this package *is* the oxt so it does not make sense to reflect its version. You would have liked it if I omitted the actual extension version in http://packages.debian.org/sid/openoffice.org-report-builder http://packages.debian.org/sid/openoffice.org-pdfimport etc.?
> The only content of this package *is* the oxt so it does not make sense to > reflect its version. ^ not
(or, for this case: http://packages.debian.org/sid/openoffice.org-writer2latex which does not even have the OOo suffix as it's directly built out of the external writer2latex)
I really do not see any problem to have a file in version a.b.c.d in a package with version x.y.z. There is absolutely no correlation, even if it is the only file in the package. And there cannot even be a correlation, if packages and files have different version schemas, like oxt files and RPMs. And there is no need to omit the extension version. You only have to know, that extension in version 0.5.0.2 is part of OOo 3.1.0, in which all RPM packages have the version 3.1.0-<buildid>. This is absolutely simple and can be generated automatically. And believe me: Nobody realizes that he has to update the "packageversion" for this one package in the svn module setup_native, if the version of the oxt file was changed. This will not fit together in a very short time. I created cws native234 to fix this issue.
Fixed by using packageversion "3.1.0" like for all other packages, too. If there are very good reasons for another package vesion (0.5.0 ?) they should be escalated soon.
of: The related package is named "openoffice.org3-writer2latex-3.1.0-9388.i586.rpm" now. This is consistent to all openoffice.org3 packages.
reassigning
consisten naming in ooo310_m7