We'd like to continue the production of the 32-bit deb packages

[dreamnext at gmail.com]

Thanks Michael for the head up about build-nocheck. I used it as a last
resort, because I am still unable to have 'make' finished without an error
if I don't add that parameter.

The use of that parameter is even sort of advised on the LibreOffice blog (
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2019/06/12/start-developing-libreoffice-download-the-source-code-and-build-on-linux/
)

"If you would like to compile without unit tests (for example, if you don’t
want to check that what you have changed in the source code will cause
regressions), use the *build-nocheck* parameter instead"

El jue., 8 ago. 2019 a las 10:54, Eike Rathke (<erack at redhat.com>) escribió:

> Hi dreamnext,
>
> On Thursday, 2019-08-08 10:36:17 -0500, dreamnext at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Thanks for you help. the 'make build-nocheck' did  the trick of passing
> the
> > unit test, and it finishes successfully :-)
> >
> > Now I'm on the stage of trying to build distributable deb files.
>
> Which isn't recommendable though.. or rather ill-advised. Building
> without checks and distributing means it may (and probably will) fail
> for the end user when installed. Checks are there for a reason. make
> build-nocheck does not pass the tests, it skips them. Actually
> build-nocheck should never be recommended unless someone wants to do
> private builds to investigate failures or do modifications and at the
> end would run a build with checks again.
>
>   Eike
>
> --
> GPG key 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563
> 2D3A
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20190808/d64db380/attachment.html>