Registration of LO extensions

Sebastian Humenda shumenda at
Fri Oct 24 14:51:26 PDT 2014


Rene Engelhard schrieb am 12.10.2014, 19:40 +0200:
>On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:42:15PM +0100, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
>> >It's supposed to pick it up automatically.
>> >
>> >> get debugging information if Libreoffice didn't pick up the extension for some
>> >> reason?
>> >
>> >What does unopkg list --bundled (or validate --bundled) say. Does it appear
>> $ unopkg list --bundled
>> All deployed bundled extensions:
>> <none>
>And validate --bundled?
>If also not, it probably isn't seen at all...
No, nothing.

>> Searching the web, I was not able to find information about which files are
>> relevant for this recognition process at all, only about how to invoke unopkg
>> with an OXT extension.
>Yeah, because this is supposed to be only used for "bundled" extensions.
Hence the word :).

>Does it have a proper description.xml? (And or META-INF/manifest.xml)?
>But when  that isn't present a unopkg add .oxt shouldn't have worked either.
>Does that work?
It turns out that it doesn't.

$ unopg  add -v *.oxt

ERROR: unsatisfied dependencies
       Cause: ( { { Message = "unsatisfied dependencies", Context = ( @91ec368 }, UnsatisfiedDependencies = ([] { @91f7c8c } }

unopkg failed.

I've attached the description.xml, which you probably already have seen. Is it
because it depends on OO instead of LO?

Web: | Blog:
Freies Latein-Deutsch-Wörterbuch:
FreeDict: Free multilingual dictionary databases -
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: description.xml
Type: application/xml
Size: 992 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list