Issue 95919 - Extension Manager can't identify OOo as 3.0.1
Summary: Extension Manager can't identify OOo as 3.0.1
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOO300m9
Hardware: All All
: P2 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 3.0.1
Assignee: joerg.skottke
QA Contact: issues@framework
URL:
Keywords: oooqa
Depends on:
Blocks: 93339
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2008-11-06 10:35 UTC by Olaf Felka
Modified: 2009-01-05 12:20 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description Olaf Felka 2008-11-06 10:35:56 UTC
- installed OOo OOO300_m11
- tried to install oooimprovement extension which needs OOo 3.0.1
- system dependency check can't identify this OOo version as 3.0.1
- extension can't be installed
Comment 1 kai.sommerfeld 2008-11-07 10:13:45 UTC
dv: Please take over.
Comment 2 dirk.voelzke 2008-11-10 10:50:53 UTC
Fixed in cws DV06 in file desktop\source\deployment\misc\dp_dependencies.cxx
Comment 3 dirk.voelzke 2008-11-11 08:50:04 UTC
Please verify. For testing you have to add the key 'OOOPackageVersion=3.0.1' to
the version ini file inside the basis layer.
Comment 4 Stephan Bergmann 2008-11-12 09:46:29 UTC
.
Comment 5 Stephan Bergmann 2008-11-12 09:56:16 UTC
@dv: Reopened as I doubt that
desktop/source/deployment/misc/dp_dependencies.cxx:1.9.156.1 is a correct fix:
1 Basis layer version ini-file buildid value (strictly speaking, the "Version"
section is also missing from the string passed to expandMacros) does not contain
a proper version number (it contains values like "300m11(Build:9366)").
2 Since basis layer version ini-file buildid value is always present (and should
never be empty), there is no need to alternatively read basis layer version
ini-file OOOBaseVersion value.
3 Why request to add basis layer version ini-file OOOPackageVersion entry in
<#desc4>?
4 Please remember to remove no-longer needed brand layer version ini-file
OOOBaseVersion entry.  (URE layer and basis layer version ini-file
OOOBaseVersion entries have never been used in the first place, so can be
removed, too.)
Comment 6 joerg.skottke 2008-11-12 11:34:41 UTC
I suspect that this fix might replicate or - in some other way - imitate the
fixes that were introduced with CWS oooimprovementcorefixes.

@dv: Please consult b_michaelsen to find out whether this is true or not.
Comment 7 bjoern.michaelsen 2008-11-12 11:48:38 UTC
@jsk: Nothing was done on this topic on oooimprovementcorefixes. There is no
active code related to this in that cws.
The oooimprovement extension has a dependency in its description.xml triggering
this issue, however no code from the extension or from the
oooimprovementcorefixes cws is executed when this issue manifests itself.
Comment 8 joerg.skottke 2008-11-12 12:35:40 UTC
Ok, i got that. However, is SB's assumption right that this fix is not going to
work?

I cannot accept an issue when a developer doubts the effectiveness of the fix.
Comment 9 Stephan Bergmann 2008-11-12 12:56:57 UTC
@jsk:  The CWS appears to fix the immediate problem (failure to install
oooimprovement extension) by accident.  That the fix is broken and causes
regressions is easily seen when calling unopkg add on
desktop/test/deployment/dependencies/version10000.oxt:1.2, which should fail
with an unsatisfied dependency (see
desktop/test/deployment/dependencies/readme.txt:1.7).
Comment 10 dirk.voelzke 2008-11-13 07:20:09 UTC
Now using OOOPackageVersion for full version info, removed old fall back code.
Comment 11 dirk.voelzke 2008-11-13 07:21:37 UTC
Please verify.
Comment 12 joerg.skottke 2008-11-18 11:24:34 UTC
Verified. Additional actions taken:
- Update e_extensions.bas to cover the minor versions as well (issue 96309)
- Update specification document 
Comment 13 joerg.skottke 2009-01-05 11:02:55 UTC
Entry is in versionrc for m14
Comment 14 joerg.skottke 2009-01-05 12:20:25 UTC
Good in m14, closing