minutes of ESC call ...

Miklos Vajna vmiklos at collabora.co.uk
Fri Sep 20 00:23:09 PDT 2013


> (*) The new version lacks the source-hash which was useful to corelate
>     the bibisect repo to the live repo.  Does the date in the new repo
>     get us close enough?

Each tree comes with a build-info.txt, which contains the top of 'git
log' output. I did it that way as sometimes master build was broken, I
had to do a local fix, so a single hash would not be useful at all.

> (*) Trying to execute soffice from the new version tells me (newlines
>     added, and truncating leading directory names):
>         .../soffice.bin: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.17'
>         not found (required by .../libi18nlangtag.so)
>         Exited with code '1'
>     This is on ubuntu-quantal-studio (12.10).  My installed version of
>     libc is the latest one offered, 2.15-0ubuntu20.1.

This is a default build output on openSUSE 12.3. Again, this is an
interim step till it'll be sorted out properly on the TDF side, the hope
is that in the long term the bibisect repo will be built on the baseline
system (RHEL5), which avoids the above problem as well.

>     Is it an accident that the new bibisect version is more demanding
>     than "40+" version?

I built it for my personal use, just now when the other one lacked
updates since mid-July I came up with the idea of sharing it. So it's
one build / workday, not something planned, like "let's build 40
versions between 4.1 branchoff and today", as Bjoern did previously.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20130920/8df147f4/attachment.pgp>

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list