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