Re: libreoffice, mingw-w64, gcc-mingw-w64 and gnat-4.6 on armhf
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:49:02PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> it's even more hilarious than that: it's actually because java can't
>> access windows registry functions, so someone wrote a c-based DLL
>> which java *can* bind to. the fact that the end-result of the
>
> Yes, that is the point.
>
>> mingw-w64 cross-compiler output would be an x86 64-bit DLL, which
>
> No, it's a 32 bit dll.
yes - steven kindly privately outlined a bit more detail about what's
involved: he said that it's actually part of the developer kit.
> # file /usr/share/libreoffice/sdk/classes/win/unowinreg.dll
> /usr/share/libreoffice/sdk/classes/win/unowinreg.dll: PE32 executable (DLL) (console) Intel 80386 (stripped to external PDB), for MS Windows
>
> i686-w64-mingw32-g++ is called.
that's different from mingw-w64, then.
>> simply wouldn't even run on an ARM processor anyway seems to have
>> entirely escaped everyone's attention.
>
> No. In contast, Stephen said it correctly.
actually, he didn't: in the public post he didn't mention that it was
purely for shipping with the *windows* version of libreoffice, so that
people who perform development on gnu/linux of libreoffice
applications can ship the libreoffice application with that DLL *such
that* the *windows* version of libreoffice will actually work and have
access to the windows dll.
> "[...] isn't used on Debian, but it is provided by the SDK because it is supposed to be
> bundled with plugins [...] and therefore to be able to correctly build "shippable"
> plugins using Debian the SDK packages need to provide the DLL."
>
>> i describe the chain here, and have made a request on behalf of the
>> sanity of the debian-arm team that the libreoffice developers consider
>> adding a compile-time switch to remove the complete mental brain-fart
>> retardation from the software for which they are responsible:
>>
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46614
>
> To be fair, that all is inherited from OOo.
> And it's a non-issue now that we *do* have mingw-w64 on armhf.
hurrah!
>> let's see if they have a sense of humour, eh?
>
> If the bug is formulated like the nonsense in this post I won't believe so.
your bullying and lack of forgiveness is duly noted.
l.
Reply to: