<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - LibreOffice Base 7204 for Apple Arm - no JDBC support" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144130#c2">Comment # 2</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - LibreOffice Base 7204 for Apple Arm - no JDBC support" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144130">bug 144130</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:iplaw67@tuta.io" title="Alex Thurgood <iplaw67@tuta.io>"> Alex Thurgood</a> <pre>(In reply to Mike Kaganski from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=144130#c1">comment #1</a>) > This and <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - LibreOffice Base - Impossible to create or open a HSQLDB embedded ODB file." href="show_bug.cgi?id=144129">tdf#144129</a> seem duplicates of <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - LibreOffice 7.2.0.4 Apple Arm - no Java functionality" href="show_bug.cgi?id=144128">tdf#144128</a> - why file separate bugs > for non-working components that depend on Java, when it's known that Java > doesn't work? :) Because a tweet about the 7204 Arm build asked for testers and reporting of bugs. I tested and reported. Collabora seems disinclined to invest in fixing anything related to Java and LO on Mac and I can foresee those bugs being closed as WONTFIX. I am concerned that the LO project is keen to release for an arch where a significant proportion of functionality is missing just to keep pace with the corresponding commercial provider's offer.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>