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. As suggested before, I added the following lines to autogen.input --with-distro=LibreOfficeLinux --enable-release-build --with-package-format=deb --disable-dependency-tracking Next I added export QT5DIR="/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/qt5" because in my system is not enough to have the qt5-make and qr5-make-bin packages installed. Then I Installed a bunch of packages that seems to be necessary. As they seem to be KF5/QT5 related, I installed the suggested ones for kdenlive development: https://community.kde.org/Kdenlive/Development/KF5, maybe some were not necessary, but would be hard to know which ones. sudo apt-get install build-essential pkg-config \ libavformat-dev libavdevice-dev frei0r-plugins-dev frei0r-plugins libgtk2.0-dev libexif-dev \ libsdl2-dev libsox-dev libxml2-dev \ ladspa-sdk libcairo2-dev libswscale-dev qtscript5-dev libqt5svg5-dev \ libqt5opengl5-dev libepoxy-dev libeigen3-dev libfftw3-dev \ git yasm libtool automake autoconf libtool-bin libtheora-bin libtheora-dev \ intltool swig libmp3lame-dev libgavl-dev libsamplerate0-dev libjack-dev libsoup2.4-dev \ python-dev libkf5crash-dev libkf5filemetadata-dev After that, I also had to install libqt5x11extras5-dev However, something is still missing, because make build-nocheck now throws the following error: /home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/configmgr/source/components.cxx:287: error: undefined reference to 'configmgr::dconf::writeModifications(configmgr::Components&, configmgr::Data&)' /home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/configmgr/source/components.cxx:531: error: undefined reference to 'configmgr::dconf::readLayer(configmgr::Data&, int)' /home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/configmgr/source/components.cxx:533: error: undefined reference to 'configmgr::dconf::readLayer(configmgr::Data&, int)' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status /home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/Library_merged.mk:11: recipe for target '/home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/instdir/program/libmergedlo.so' failed make[1]: *** [/home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/instdir/program/libmergedlo.so] Error 1 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... Makefile:282: recipe for target 'build' failed make: *** [build] Error 2 Any idea what could be missing to successfully build the .deb files? Thanks again for all your help. El mié., 7 ago. 2019 a las 14:44, Michael Weghorn (<m.wegh...@posteo.de>) escribió: > Is there more output for the failing unit test that indicates what might > be going wrong? You can e.g. also paste larger output at > http://paste.debian.net/ or some similar service. > > As a workaround, you can also try building LibreOffice without running > the unit tests for now, by using 'make build-nocheck' instead of the > plain 'make' command. > > On 07/08/2019 00.12, dreamn...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, I did a third compile try, but it failed again. > > > > This time first I did a clean up: > > > > ------- > > make clean > > ------ > > > > Then I did a ./configure, passing CFLAGS and CFLAGSXX as: > > > > ------- > > ./configure CFLAGS='-mfpmath=sse -msse2' CFLAGSCXX='-mfpmath=sse -msse2' > > --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/default-java > > ------- > > > > ./configure is in fact reading those flags, as can be seen on the > > relevant part of its output: > > > > ----------------------- > > checking whether to use link-time optimization... no > > checking for explicit AFLAGS... no > > checking for explicit CFLAGS... -mfpmath=sse -msse2 > > checking for explicit CXXFLAGS... -mfpmath=sse -msse2 > > checking for explicit OBJCFLAGS... no > > checking for explicit OBJCXXFLAGS... no > > checking for explicit LDFLAGS... no > > ------------------------- > > > > Then I did a make, again passing the CFLAGS(XX) as parameters: > > > > ---------------- > > make CLAGS='-mfpmath=sse -msse2' CFLAGSCXX='-mfpmath=sse -msse2' > > ---------------- > > > > But it failed again at the CpuunitTest stuff, although the error message > > is a bit different from the previous ones: > > > > ------------------------- > > Failures !!! > > Run: 52 Failure total: 1 Failures: 1 Errors: 0 > > > > Error: a unit test failed, please do one of: > > > > make CppunitTest_sw_layoutwriter CPPUNITTRACE="gdb --args" > > # for interactive debugging on Linux > > make CppunitTest_sw_layoutwriter VALGRIND=memcheck > > # for memory checking > > make CppunitTest_sw_layoutwriter DEBUGCPPUNIT=TRUE > > # for exception catching > > > > You can limit the execution to just one particular test by: > > > > make CPPUNIT_TEST_NAME="testXYZ" ...above mentioned params... > > > > /home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/solenv/gbuild/CppunitTest.mk:113: > > recipe for target > > > '/home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/workdir/CppunitTest/sw_layoutwriter.test' > > failed > > make[1]: *** > > > [/home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/workdir/CppunitTest/sw_layoutwriter.test] > > Error 1 > > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... > > Makefile:282: recipe for target 'build' failed > > make: *** [build] Error 2 > > ----------------------------- > > > > So... what else could be done to reach the goal of building LIbreOffice > > 32-bit? > > > > Thanks again in advance. > > > > El lun., 5 ago. 2019 a las 16:40, dreamn...@gmail.com > > <mailto:dreamn...@gmail.com> (<dreamn...@gmail.com > > <mailto:dreamn...@gmail.com>>) escribió: > > > > > > Well, based on the info that Stephan kindly passed, I tried 'make' > > with the following parameters: > > > > make ENVCFLAGS="-mfpmath=sse -msse2" ENVCFLAGSCXX="-mfpmath=sse > -msse2" > > > > However, it threw the same error as before. > > > > I intentionally did not type 'make clean' beforehand because: > > > > 1) I'm assumming that those additional flags would be applied in the > > code that fails to compile. I *think* that if it didn't not work > > again, that would mean that the issue is something else? > > 2) I'm willing to do a 'make clean' if my above assumption is > > incorrect, even if that means another 7 hours of hard work for my > > poor computer. However, as I stated before, for this scenario I'm > > following the instructions from > > > > > https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2019/06/12/start-developing-libreoffice-download-the-source-code-and-build-on-linux/ > > > > But I have no idea which version of LibreOffice I'm compiling. To be > > worth all the extra efforts that a 'make clean' represents, I'd like > > to be sure that I'm trying to compile LibreOffice 6.3. > > > > Is there a way to prove or instruct that LibreOffice 6.3 is the > > selected one to compile? > > > > Best Regards and Thanks in advance. > > > > El lun., 5 ago. 2019 a las 9:53, dreamn...@gmail.com > > <mailto:dreamn...@gmail.com> (<dreamn...@gmail.com > > <mailto:dreamn...@gmail.com>>) escribió: > > > > Well, my first compile attempts had not been very good. > > > > I followed the instructions kindly provided by Michael Weghorn, > > and downloaded and uncompress the source packages > > libreoffice-6.3.0.3.tar.xz, > > libreoffice-dictionaries-6.3.0.3.tar.xz, > > libreoffice-help-6.3.0.3.tar.xz and > > libreoffice-translations-6.3.0.3.tar.xz > > > > The first issue was that autogen requires the presence of > > gstreamer1.0 AND of gstreamer0.10. gstreamer0.10 is deprecated, > > but anyway I found and installed the required gstreamer0.10 deb > > packages from elsewhere, but it still complained that they were > > missing, so I added a --disable-gstreamer-0-10 parameter. > > > > Then a new error appeared: > > > > "configure: error: Wrong qmake for Qt5 found. Please specify the > > root of your Qt5 installation by exporting QT5DIR before running > > "configure". > > Error running configure at ./autogen.sh line 302." > > > > However, the qt5-qmake and qt5-qmake-bin packages are installed > > in my system! > > > > Since I was not able to stat compiling using Michael > > instructions, I wondered what would happen if I followed instead > > the steps recently published on the LibreOffice blog > > ( > https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2019/06/12/start-developing-libreoffice-download-the-source-code-and-build-on-linux/ > ) > > It was a blind choice, since I have no idea what LibreOffice > > version would I get if compiled (is there a way to get an > > specific version?), or how easy would be to generate deb > > packages afterwards. > > > > In that set of instructions I changed: > > > > --with-lang=hu en-US > > > > to > > > > --with-lang=es en-US > > > > in order to try to obtain a LibreOffice in Spanish language, not > > in Hungarian. > > > > I also removed the following lines: > > > > > --with-referenced-git=/home/linuxosfelhasznalonev/libreoffice/core > > > > --with-external-tar=/home/linuxosfelhasznalonev/libreoffice/core/external/tarballs > > > > > > As they point to hard paths on the disk of the article author. I > > tried to reproduce those paths to match my own by creating core, > > external and tarballs directories, but it didn't work, so I > > merely removed those two lines. > > > > This time it began compiling, but after A LOT of hours and more > > of 40 GB used, the make command always stops at this error: > > > > > > "Error: a unit test failed, please do one of: > > make CppunitTest_sc_filters_test CPPUNITTRACE="gdb --args" > > # for interactive debugging on Linux > > make CppunitTest_sc_filters_test VALGRIND=memcheck > > # for memory checking > > make CppunitTest_sc_filters_test DEBUGCPPUNIT=TRUE > > # for exception catching > > You can limit the execution to just one particular test by: > > make CPPUNIT_TEST_NAME="testXYZ" ...above mentioned params... > > > /home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/solenv/gbuild/CppunitTest.mk:113: > > recipe for target > > > > '/home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/workdir/CppunitTest/sc_filters_test.test' > > failed > > make[1]: *** > > > > [/home/linux/libreoffice/libreoffice/workdir/CppunitTest/sc_filters_test.test] > > Error 1 > > Makefile:167: recipe for target 'CppunitTest_sc_filters_test' > failed > > make: *** [CppunitTest_sc_filters_test] Error 2" > > > > So, I'm kind of stuck in both procedures. Does somebody knows > > how to solve on one or both? > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > El vie., 26 jul. 2019 a las 10:01, dreamn...@gmail.com > > <mailto:dreamn...@gmail.com> (<dreamn...@gmail.com > > <mailto:dreamn...@gmail.com>>) escribió: > > > > Hi! Greetings from the Escuelas Linux team. We are small > > Linux distribution that can be downloaded from > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/escuelaslinux/. > > Some more references about our activity can be found by > > doing an Internet search, or on own Facebook account, > > escuelas.linux > > > > We still provide a 32-bit edition of our distro, because > > among our users there are a lot of low-income public > > schools, in which are still in use old computers with about > > 512 MB to a 1 GB of RAM. That amount of RAM would make > > running a Linux 64-bit system awfully slow, so we have to > > accommodate to the needs and possibilities of what is > > available in poor areas, those in which even having an old > > computer is still somehow a luxury. > > > > We perfectly understand that TDF releasing 32-bit Linux > > LibreOffice packages was not worth anymore, given the small > > amount of downloads. Certainly some of those downloads were > > made by us, as we only required one download of a given > > LibreOffice version to have it installed in our distro and > > be used in hundreds of computers. A lot of those computers > > could not even be traceable, since there are no Internet > > connection in poor or remote schools. But we believe that > > even if we reported who and where are those schools, that > > would be still a small amount to be worth the effort and > > resources required to match the bigger amounts of downloads > > that seems to be receiving the LibreOffice 32-bit Windows > > counterpart. > > > > Given that TDF ended the provision of Linux 32-bit > > distribution neutral binaries, but not the 32-bit > > compatibility, we would like to step up to produce by > > ourselves the 32-bit distribution neutral deb packages from > > LibreOffice 6.3 and up. We are not aware of other distros or > > volunteers releasing the most recent LibreOffice version to > > date (6.3) as 32-bit distribution independent binaries. > > > > Recently, the official LibreOffice Blog published > > instructions about how to compile LibreOffice on Linux. > > However, we’d like to be able not only to compile > > LibreOffice, but we would like to learn how to be able to > > produce by ourselves the same set of 32-bit > > distribution-independent deb packages that were compressed > > as a .tar.gz, that is, the LibreOffice binaries > > (LibreOffice_?.?.?_Linux_x86-_deb.tar.gz), the translated > > user interface (the > > LibreOffice_?.?.?_Linux_x86-_deb_langpack_??.tar.gz) and the > > offline help > > (LibreOffice_?.?.?_Linux_x86-_deb_helppack_??.tar.gz). As > > for the user interface and the offline packages, our main > > focus would be Spanish language. > > > > On the download section is always available the following > > source code packages: > > libreoffice-?.?.?.?.tar.xz > > libreoffice-dictionaries-?.?.?.?.tar.xz > > libreoffice-help-?.?.?.?.tar.xz > > libreoffice-translations-?.?.?.?.tar.xz > > > > But, given our inexperience, we don’t know how to use this > > source packages to produce the same set of 32-bit deb > > packages as were previously provided by TDF. Since > > LibreOffice is distributed in a lot of languages, we guess > > that the user interface and offline packages are not created > > manually one by one by hand, some useful scripts could have > > been created to automate as far as possible those tasks. > > > > So, we respectfully ask for some pointers and steps required > > to reach this goal. In this way, we might be able to > > continue the production of the 32-bit deb packages, freeing > > TDF of that burden as planned but, at the same time, we > > could provide those packages for the parties that could be > > still interested in them. We could not be able to support > > rpm-based binaries though, someone else would have to step > > up if there's a need for that. > > > > Please let us know if this request of help is feasible for > > the Developer(s) that are responsible of the LibreOffice > > packaging. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LibreOffice mailing list > > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > > > >
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice