[PUSHED] Patch for Easy Hack 45033

On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 11:24 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote:
> On 3/8/12 9:44 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
>
> > Yeah it seems to still consist of OOo and StarOffice entries. Italio
> > could you have another go at this. i.e. attaching a biblio.odb which has
> > LibreOffice entries in it. I'd like to get this low-hanging fruit out of
> > the way.
>
> I have the proper document in my local copy of "core", but I have not
> pushed it (and will not do). I have compressed in the attached ZIP both
> the local copy of biblio.odb and the same content copied into an ODS
> file (just in case the ODB does not work).

Aha, now I understand the problem. Looking a bit closer, our biblio.odb
*doesn't* embed the database inside the .odb, this is one of the .odbs
which point to an external data source/sink. In this case it points to
~/.libreoffice/3/user/database/biblio/biblio.db[f|t] so whenever anyone
edits it then only their local .dbf and .dbt files get their data
changed :-)

So if the editors of the bibliography open the .odb then they see the
changes, but everyone else still sees the content of their original .dbt
file. Which is why Julien's efforts to update it "got lost" as well.

Documented a way to update the bibliography database that works with
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=c7de2ddf67158733ba15cea4cb8f1786e83776d9 
And took the attached .ods and updated the database from that. So job
done.

This will only affect users that don't already have a biblio.odb etc
installed, i.e. new-install users, existing users already have a copy of
the older versions installed in their user dir, which doesn't get
replaced.

caolanm->lionel: might be worth having a look at the points a & b in
that README, not sure if those are bugs or intentional behavior.

C.