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, dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx 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, dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx> (<dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx>>) 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, dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx> (<dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx>>) 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, dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx> (<dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:dreamnext@xxxxxxxxx>>) 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
