[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libreoffice, mingw-w64, gcc-mingw-w64 and gnat-4.6 on armhf

Rene Engelhard wrote:

Hi,
Libreoffice hasn't yet been built on armhf. I consider libreoffice to be a reasonablly important package and one that we need to get in before we can claim we have a reasonablly complete port. 

And the segfault described on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/900636 and experienced on harris, too?:

I wasn't aware of that

Making: all_bridgetest.dpslo
cd ../../unxlngr.pro/lib && : && LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/build/buildd/libreoffice-3.4.4/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.4.3.2/solver/340/unxlngr.pro/lib${LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}} /build/buildd/libreoffice-3.4.4/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.4.3.2/solver/340/unxlngr.pro/bin/uno \
        -ro uno_services.rdb -ro uno_types.rdb \
        -s com.sun.star.test.bridge.BridgeTest -- \
        com.sun.star.test.bridge.CppTestObject
/bin/bash: line 1: 11210 Segmentation fault LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/build/buildd/libreoffice-3.4.4/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.4.3.2/solver/340/unxlngr.pro/lib${LD_LIBRARY_PATH:+:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}} /build/buildd/libreoffice-3.4.4/libreoffice-build/build/libreoffice-3.4.3.2/solver/340/unxlngr.pro/bin/uno -ro uno_services.rdb -ro uno_types.rdb -s com.sun.star.test.bridge.BridgeTest -- com.sun.star.test.bridge.CppTestObject
dmake: Error code 139, while making 'runtest'

I don't see a fast sollution soon. (maybe we can just disable java and python etc and look whether that one works, but that would be crippling
and I am not sure whether the bridge is also needed for other features. amd64 bugs in the bridges e.g. also affected calc computation back in the
past...)

:( looks way out of my league.

I've pointed that one out already on #debian-arm...
Not all of us live on irc, if you want to get something through to everyone working on the port the mailing list is probablly a better bet. 
For the "why do you need mingw-w64?" part, Stephen already answered it correctly.

Thanks for explaining.
Reply to: