Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 100282
"echo yes | unopkg add myExt.oxt "does not accept license any more
Last modified: 2017-05-20 10:24:12 UTC
OO 3.1 fixes issue http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=99249 but now i noticed another problem installing extensions from command line: echo yes | unopkg add myExtension.oxt should automatically accept the licence agreement on windows systems but this seems not work any more - is it a regression ?
@ jsk: Please have a look.
Issues 99249 effected only Windows. Apart from that, circumventing to read the license by echo yes | unopkg add myExtension.oxt is not part of the design nor intended. Currently there is no supported way to suppress the license or automatically agree to it. This could only be allowed by the publisher of the extension, by say defining some additional flags in the description.xml. However, this mechanism is not in place. When a publisher decides to show a license, then this has to occur, no matter if it suits the user or not.
> is not part of the design nor intended. but it worked until 00 3.1m5 ;-) and how can one deploy *shared* extensions for about 1000 users ?
>but it worked until 00 3.1m5 ;-) by accident. >and how can one deploy *shared* extensions for about 1000 users ? The license mechanism currently defines three situations: 1. No license supplied. Nothing is displayed. 2.User must accept license. Then the extension cannot be installed as shared. 3.Admin must accept license. Then only the person who installs the shared extension needs to accept the license. See also http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Simple_License For other scenarios, this feature needs to be extended.
> 3.Admin must accept license. Then only the person who installs the shared > extension needs to accept the license. this will not help if one *has* to deploy oo via scrips. and i am interessed to see what will hapen if one of the dictionary extensions (shipped with oo installation in "share\extension\install") will add a license agreement ... ;-)
>this will not help if one *has* to deploy oo via scrips. As I indicated earlier, the publisher of the extension decides if or if not someone must agree. The current feature only allows to 1.not display anything by not using this feature 2.display the license and enforce the "active" agreement The consequence of the latter case is that such extensions cannot be bundled, as said in the wiki. If one wanted something like #2 and additionally have the user leave the choice to skip the license, then this should be explicitly allowed by the publisher. But this feature does not exist (yet). If OOo wanted to ship a bundled extension with a license then it needs either - convince the publisher to remove the license - implement the needed feature and have extension developer adapt their extensions if needed.
> For other scenarios, this feature needs to be extended. > implement the needed feature and have extension developer adapt their > extensions if needed. ok, setting issue type to ENHANCEMENT
what about introducing a new attribute: "suppress-on-cmd-install" ? if true, no license is shown if installed via cmd line...
Rather a "allow-silent-installation". I think it is in the interest of the publisher that the license is also displayed when unopkg is run from the console. An additional switch for unopkg is needed, for example, "--suppress-license". Then only those licenses of extensions are displayed, where the description.xml DOES NOT contain the "allow-silent-installation="true" "
.
Issue 102097 makes unopkg have its old behaviour again.
Adapted specs: /cvs/specs/www/appwide/packagemanager/simple_extension_license.odt /cvs/specs/www/appwide/packagemanager/unopkg_spec.sxw Wiki: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fregistration.2Fsimple-license @jsk: Please verify.
There is also a test extension (on the cws) ooo/desktop/test/deployment/simple-license/suppress_license.oxt. Also have a look at test_simple_license.odt, paragraph 1.15, in the same folder.
The information in this issue is different to the implementationm, the key is called "suppress-if- required" and is evaluated when calling unopkg with the parameter --suppress-license. Check the online specification as mentioned above for testing!
Tested (--shared): - short-license.oxt add with switch --suppress-license: ok, installation aborts as each user has to agree to the license (good) - suppress-license.oxt add without switch: License displayed (good) - suppress-license.oxt add with --suppress-license: No license displayed, extension is installed (good) - suppress-license.oxt reinstall: Reinstallation appears to work (~good) - suppress-license.oxt reinstall without having the extension already installed: Fails silently (bad!) Tested (for user) - simple-license.oxt installs (good) - removal by name worked (usually, had an exception once but was unable to reproduce) (~good) - removal by identifier shows same behavior as for name (~good) - suppress-license.oxt add (with agreeing the license) (good) - suppress-license.oxt remove works. (good) - suppress-license.oxt with --suppress-license works (good) - suppress-license.oxt reinstall (good) - suppress-license.oxt remove with identifier works (good) several hundred parameter combinations were left out as i still cannot use the returnvalue for unopkg to reliably test all combinations.
*** Issue 83448 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***