Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hello!

On Sun, 2023-06-18 at 09:31 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Also note I am not talking about the debian-ports architectures. Those I
> forgot and I have no problems making them stay into "testsuite ran but
> results ignored" set.

Why did you send this mail exclusively to debian-ports then?

> Right now, the only architectures where the test actually work (ignoring
> the occassional breakage on arm64 which is fixed upstream since they do
> aarch64 flatpak builds) is amd64 and arm64.
> (...)
> I don't really like sweeping it under the carpet again and would
> actually pursue the "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
> way pointed out and (implicitely) approved/suggested by the release team...

You want Debian to drop support for all architectures except amd64 and arm64
because a single package doesn't pass its testsuite on the other architectures?

Adrian

--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

[Rob Landley]

On 6/18/23 03:45, Rene Engelhard wrote:> Am 18.06.23 um 10:32 schrieb Rene
Engelhard:

>>>> I don't really like sweeping it under the carpet again and would
>>>> actually pursue the "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
>>>> way pointed out and (implicitely) approved/suggested by the release
>>>> team...
>>> You want Debian to drop support for all architectures except amd64 and
>>> arm64
>>> because a single package doesn't pass its testsuite on the other
>>> architectures?
>>

>> If the "porters" of those architectures don't care about the tests, yes,
>> this would be the ultimate result.
>>
>> And as the release team agrees with me...
>
> Well, actually I was too tired still. But the tone from my initial mail
> was quite clear. I know you WANT to misread that and I fell into that trap

No, that's how I read it too. You said getting the _architectures_ removed, not
getting libreoffice removed from those architectures.

> Of course I mean "getting those architectures removed from unstable"
> *for libreoffice*.

This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for?

https://lwn.net/Articles/933525/

When gcc switched to GPLv3 llvm appeared. When Samba switched to GPLv3 Apple
wrote their own and Linux grew the ksmbd in-kernel server.

Three years ago Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison lamented that "Both GPLv3 and
the AGPL have been rejected soundly by most developers" and talked about how he
regretted the move and the damage it had done to the project,
https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-allison

How long has the problem you're treating as a crisis been brewing?

Rob

[Rene Engelhard]

Hi,

Am 22.07.23 um 15:02 schrieb Andreas Schwab:
> On Jul 22 2023, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-riscv/2023/07/msg00014.html is for manual
>> thing. And the IRC log shows that even libreoffice-lightproof-en etc don't
>> appear as bundled extensions.
> $ unopkg list --bundled
> All deployed bundled extensions:
>
> Identifier: org.openoffice.en.hunspell.dictionaries
> Version: 2022.05.01
> URL: vnd.sun.star.expand:$BUNDLED_EXTENSIONS/lightproof-en
> is registered: yes
> Media-Type: application/vnd.sun.star.package-bundle
> Description:
> bundled Packages: {
> URL: vnd.sun.star.expand:$BUNDLED_EXTENSIONS/lightproof-en/Lightproof.components
> is registered: yes
> Media-Type: application/vnd.sun.star.uno-components
> Description:
>
> URL: vnd.sun.star.expand:$BUNDLED_EXTENSIONS/lightproof-en/Linguistic.xcu
> is registered: yes
> Media-Type: application/vnd.sun.star.configuration-data
> Description:
>
> }
>
Interesting.


Now the question is what is different between openSUSEs libreoffice
package and Debians...

Does opensuse have some public git/$VCS?

(Though I would more bet of some system evironment thingy)


Regards,


Rene