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

Bug#384727: openoffice.org-2.0.4~ood680m1 failes to compile, tries to find unowinreg.dll



notfound 384727 2.0.3-3
found 384727 2.0.4~ood680m1-1
severity 384727 important
tag 384727 + confirmed
tag 384727 + pending
tag 384727 + experimental
retitle 384727 openoffice.org-2.0.4~ood680m1 failes to compile on amd64, tries to find unowinreg.dll
thanks

Hi,

Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote:
> Package: openoffice.org
> Version: 2.0.3-3
           ^^^^^^^
	   
> Severity: serious
> Justification: no longer builds from source

Wrong justification. if the libmythes-dev alone build would fail, the
justification would be right. But as it's not it's no serious bug
because you changed the build significantly and this is no FTBFS in
a official-supported build. That the amd64 builds are enabled in
experimental doesn't matter for the justification here because there's no amd64
packages in the archive (and the build of those will be disabled once
this goes to sid again...)

> Version 2.0.4~ood680m1 does not build on my system (Built on amd64 for
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be nice to report bugs against the right version... Not against
2.0.3-3... Which even is nowwhere anymore so you must be using some
broken, old mix....

> cp: cannot stat
> `/home/gudjon/nobackup/openoffice.org-2.0.4~ood680m1/ooo-build/src/unowinreg.dll':
> No such file or directory

Shouldn't happen. Only used when --with-mingwin= isn't specified this
dll should be tried to copied. (The sane thing is to rebuild it instead
of using a binary-only dll...)

Unfortunately, due to a minor bug in debian/rules this isn't.

> But I have not either seen compiled version 2.0.4 in i386.

Huh? There is. In experimental. And this one *does* build.

Anyway, this will be fixed in the next upload for amd64 OOo builds..

Regards,

Rene

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: