[External] : Re: LibreOffice architecture support (was: Fwd: Plan to remove dead C++ UNO bridge implementations (bridges/source/cpp_uno/*))

[Petr Sumbera]

Hi,

On 12.01.2023 10:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Stephan!
> 
> On 1/12/23 10:48, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> On 10/01/2023 19:57, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> Hi Stephan!
>>>
>>>> There are currently 27 different, per-platform C++ UNO bridge 
>>>> implementations at
>>>> bridges/source/cpp_uno/, some of which are presumably dead by now. 
>>>> And my recent
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.libreoffice.org/core/*/ef533553559fe09b4afab651fc692885d1acf4ed*5E!/__;KyU!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KXU_z2MpxVAcDc3mFSv6lVajUOw57x8kXdOz-kYNh_H6qrbrbJ_-oDGDaMyqhLSViKqpztTIkBHLPjYe5On88XuUN63wkA$ >
>>>> "Rudimentary support for dynamic_cast on UNO proxy objects" (which 
>>>> had to touch
>>>> each of them individually) was the latest example how even 
>>>> presumably dead ones
>>>> have ongoing maintenance cost. Therefore, I would like to remove (on 
>>>> master,
>>>> towards LO 7.6) the ones that can clearly be identified as being dead.
>>>>
>>>> Below, I sorted those 27 implementations into 5 categories: Ideally, 
>>>> each active
>>>> implementation would be built regularly by Jenkins; those 9 that are 
>>>> go into category
>>>> 1. Next, there are 2 additional implementations that I know are 
>>>> built for Fedora
>>>> releases; they go into category 2. Next, there are 2 additional 
>>>> implementations
>>>> that I presume are built for Debian releases (Rene, correct me if 
>>>> I'm wrong);
>>>> they go into category 3. And then there are 3 implementations that 
>>>> are presumably
>>>> in active use elsewhere (Tor, wjh-la, Sakura286, correct me if I'm 
>>>> wrong); which
>>>> go into category 4. That leaves 11 implementations that are 
>>>> presumably dead, in
>>>> category 5.
>>>
>>>> (5) Presumably dead:
>> [...]
>>>> * gcc3_solaris_intel
>>>> * gcc3_solaris_sparc
>>>
>>> Oracle is still maintaining Solaris until at least 2035 and 
>>> OpenIndiana is still maintained, too.
>>>
>>> According to this article, LibreOffice 7.2.7 was shipped with 
>>> OpenIndiana 2022.10:
>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/07/new_version_of_openindiana/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KXU_z2MpxVAcDc3mFSv6lVajUOw57x8kXdOz-kYNh_H6qrbrbJ_-oDGDaMyqhLSViKqpztTIkBHLPjYe5On88Xvkj9VyDQ$ 
>>>
>>> So, I'm not sure dropping Solaris support is a good idea either.
>>
>> Thanks for that link.
>>
>>  From 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenIndiana__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KXU_z2MpxVAcDc3mFSv6lVajUOw57x8kXdOz-kYNh_H6qrbrbJ_-oDGDaMyqhLSViKqpztTIkBHLPjYe5On88XtEJWU1qA$ > it looks like at least OpenIndiana only supports x86-64, so neither gcc3_solar_intel (32-bit x86) nor gcc3_solaris_sparc (32-bit SPARC) should be relevant for it. I'm adding Andreas Wacknitz (who's the author of recent OpenIndiana announcements like <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.openindiana.org/2022/12/04/openindiana-hipster-2022-10-is-here/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KXU_z2MpxVAcDc3mFSv6lVajUOw57x8kXdOz-kYNh_H6qrbrbJ_-oDGDaMyqhLSViKqpztTIkBHLPjYe5On88XviRRVmvA$ >) in CC, maybe he can shed some light on this.  (Andreas, my full original email starting this thread is at <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2023-January/089808.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KXU_z2MpxVAcDc3mFSv6lVajUOw57x8kXdOz-kYNh_H6qrbrbJ_-oDGDaMyqhLSViKqpztTIkBHLPjYe5On88XvjV14vXA$ > "Plan to remove dead C++ UNO bridge implementations (bridges/source/cpp_uno/*)").
>>
>> I don't know if there are any other Solaris-based offerings for which 
>> current LO master gcc3_solaris_intel and/or gcc3_solar_sparc would 
>> still be relevant.  If somebody knows of any, please report back here.
> 
> I'm adding two of the Solaris maintainers at Oracle that I know to ask 
> them whether
> the SPARC port for LibreOffice is still relevant for them.

We don't build or bundle LibreOffice with Solaris.

I know that in past people tried to build it:
https://sfe.opencsw.org/libreoffice-on-solaris11

Generally if it works on OpenIndiana it's possible that someone tries to 
build it on Solaris too.

I expect that only 64bits and GCC build might be relevant (probably 
rather on Intel than on SPARC).

Thanks,

Petr