What platforms do we have?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Hi all,

I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an extension
on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I need to know the
currently supported and maintained platforms. Only those platforms are
of interest for which there will be an OOo 3.0 build.

This is my list:
windows_x86
linux_x86
linux_x86_64
solaris_sparc
solaris_sparc64
solaris_x86
freebsd_x86_64
macosx_x86

I hope the names speak for themselves. The list is not final and will be
  expanded in future versions if there is need for it.

Regards,
Joachim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Eric Hoch
Hi Bernd,
Am Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:46:49 +0200 schrieb Joachim Lingner:

> Hi all,
>
> I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an
> extension on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I
> need to know the currently supported and maintained platforms.
> Only those platforms are of interest for which there will be an
> OOo 3.0 build.
>
> This is my list:
> windows_x86
> linux_x86
> linux_x86_64
> solaris_sparc
> solaris_sparc64
> solaris_x86
> freebsd_x86_64
> macosx_x86

You're missing macosx_ppc There are still a lot of PowerPC Macs out
there :-)

Eric

--
## de.OpenOffice.org - Office für MacOS X, Linux, Solaris & Windows
## Openoffice.org - ich steck mit drin!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Yuri Dario
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Hi,

>currently supported and maintained platforms. Only those platforms are
>of interest for which there will be an OOo 3.0 build.

please add:

        os2_x86

thanks.


Bye,

        Yuri Dario

/*
 * OS/2 open source software
 * http://web.os2power.com/yuri
 * http://www.netlabs.org
*/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
I will add

macosx_ppc
os2_x86

Joachim


Eric Hoch wrote:

> Hi Bernd,
> Am Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:46:49 +0200 schrieb Joachim Lingner:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an
>> extension on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I
>> need to know the currently supported and maintained platforms.
>> Only those platforms are of interest for which there will be an
>> OOo 3.0 build.
>>
>> This is my list:
>> windows_x86
>> linux_x86
>> linux_x86_64
>> solaris_sparc
>> solaris_sparc64
>> solaris_x86
>> freebsd_x86_64
>> macosx_x86
>
> You're missing macosx_ppc There are still a lot of PowerPC Macs out
> there :-)
>
> Eric
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Caolán McNamara
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 09:46 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an extension
> on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I need to know the
> currently supported and maintained platforms. Only those platforms are
> of interest for which there will be an OOo 3.0 build.
>
> This is my list:
> windows_x86
> linux_x86
> linux_x86_64
> solaris_sparc
> solaris_sparc64
> solaris_x86
> freebsd_x86_64
> macosx_x86

+

linux_ppc
linux_ppc64
linux_ia64
linux_s390
linux_s390x (ready for qa today)
linux_arm_eabi
linux_arm_oabi
linux_sparc
linux_mips_el
linux_mips_eb

C.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Rene Engelhard-7
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Hi,

Joachim Lingner wrote:
> I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an extension  
> on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I need to know the  
> currently supported and maintained platforms. Only those platforms are  
> of interest for which there will be an OOo 3.0 build.
>
> This is my list:
> windows_x86
> linux_x86
> linux_x86_64
        ^^^^^^
        Whee. So this is finally supported now? Won't 64bit bugs be
        either ignored or closed with the reasoning that you (== Sun)
        won't support 64bit?

Anyway, Linux distros (I know of Debian) also ship:

linux_powerpc
linux_s390
linux_ia64
linux_sparc

(and maybe:
a
linux_arm
linux_mips)

> solaris_sparc
> solaris_sparc64
> solaris_x8r6
> freebsd_x86_64

I am not a FreeBSD guay, but why is there no freebsd_x86 here? :)

> macosx_x86

As already said, macosx_ppc.

Regards,

Rene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Caolan McNamara wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 09:46 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an extension
>> on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I need to know the
>> currently supported and maintained platforms. Only those platforms are
>> of interest for which there will be an OOo 3.0 build.
>>
>> This is my list:
>> windows_x86
>> linux_x86
>> linux_x86_64
>> solaris_sparc
>> solaris_sparc64
>> solaris_x86
>> freebsd_x86_64
>> macosx_x86
>
> +
>
> linux_ppc
> linux_ppc64
This platform cannot be obtained currently using the bootstrap API, for
example:
       
                 OUString os( RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("$_OS") );
                 ::rtl::Bootstrap::expandMacros( os );

We use $_OS and $_ARCH to obtain platform information. Possible values
are defined in rtl/source/macro.hxx. ppc64 is currently not support.

> linux_ia64
> linux_s390
> linux_s390x (ready for qa today)
-not supported
> linux_arm_eabi
-not supported
> linux_arm_oabi
-not supported
> linux_sparc
> linux_mips_el
-not support
> linux_mips_eb
-not supported



Are s390x arm_eabi, arm_oabi, mips_el, mips_eb names for particular CPU
types? If so, then the bootstrap API should be extended accordingly.

However, currently we  could add
linux_arm
linux_mips

What do you think?


>
> C.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Rene Engelhard wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Joachim Lingner wrote:
>> I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an extension  
>> on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I need to know the  
>> currently supported and maintained platforms. Only those platforms are  
>> of interest for which there will be an OOo 3.0 build.
>>
>> This is my list:
>> windows_x86
>> linux_x86
>> linux_x86_64
>         ^^^^^^
> Whee. So this is finally supported now? Won't 64bit bugs be
> either ignored or closed with the reasoning that you (== Sun)
> won't support 64bit?
>
We do not do 64bit builds but I believed that there is a 64bit port for
linux. If I am mistaken, then I can remove this.

> Anyway, Linux distros (I know of Debian) also ship:
>
> linux_powerpc
> linux_s390
> linux_ia64
> linux_sparc
>
> (and maybe:
> a
> linux_arm
> linux_mips)
>
>> solaris_sparc
>> solaris_sparc64
>> solaris_x8r6
>> freebsd_x86_64
>
> I am not a FreeBSD guay, but why is there no freebsd_x86 here? :)
By accident or uncertainty :) Is there a FreeBSD developer reading this?
Will there be future x86 builds?


Anyway, as I mentioned platforms can also be added later on. There is no
real need to have a full list now or guessing what there will be in the
future.

Joachim

>
>> macosx_x86
>
> As already said, macosx_ppc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rene
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Caolán McNamara
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 11:40 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:
> This platform cannot be obtained currently using the bootstrap API, for
> example:
>
>                  OUString os( RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("$_OS") );
>                  ::rtl::Bootstrap::expandMacros( os );
>
> We use $_OS and $_ARCH to obtain platform information.

> Possible values
> are defined in rtl/source/macro.hxx. ppc64 is currently not support.

True, ppc64 is detected in that list as simply "ppc" with no
distinction from ppc32, which is the same situation as the 32bit s390
vs 64bit s390x. And the two different ABIs possibilities for arm are
both simply recorded as ARM and also both the endian variants for MIPS
are not distinguished between in macro.hxx

It was never previously a problem from the point of view that it wasn't
necessary to distinguish between them in sal to successful build OOo.
With the other sizeof(long) stuff taking care of the 32bit/64bit
differences and build-time logic selecting which uno bridge to build.

> Are s390x arm_eabi, arm_oabi, mips_el, mips_eb names for particular CPU
> types? If so, then the bootstrap API should be extended accordingly.

Well the eabi vs oabi are two different ABIs that are possible for ARM,
with the eabi being the new one. The CPU is the same, but most distros
basically treat them as two different CPUS. If it is important then I
can clean up the macros.hxx to enumerate explicitly and distinguish
binary incompatible platforms from each other so there's a unique
THIS_ARCH for each.

> However, currently we  could add
> linux_arm
> linux_mips

btw, where do these get added ? Are they being added e.g. to some sort
of "these are the extensions available for your platform" section of a
website ?

C.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Thanks Caolan for explaining that to me.
I need the platform descriptions for the Extension Manager. Currently
one can install an extension on any platform, no matter for what
platform the extension is intended. In the future the Extension Manager
should refuse to install an extension when it cannot work on the user's
system.
To achieve this, the extension contains a platform token and the
Extension Manager checks if this token represents the current platform.

As for the s390x and ppc64 there should be a definition for _ARCH in
macro.hxx as well as for the different ABIs. This is probably the
easiest way.
  Will there still be future builds for the old ABI? If not then we
would not need it (at least the Extension Manager). Then we could just
use mips and arm.
Assuming that the old ABIs will be used, please go ahead with adding the
new definitions for _ARCH. Put me on cc so I can do the follow up
changes to the Extension Manager.

Anyway, I would not wait until your CWS is integrated, because then I'm
afraid that my CWS will not be accepted for OOo 3.0 anymore. But we can
add additional platforms later on.


 >> However, currently we  could add
 >> linux_arm
 >> linux_mips
 >
 > btw, where do these get added ? Are they being added e.g. to some sort
 > of "these are the extensions available for your platform" section of a
 > website ?

Currently it is only planned to have the Extension Manager check the
platform during installation. The openoffice extension repository web
site could, of course, make use of this information, but currently there
is nothing planned. When my CWS will be integrated, I will communicate
this to the people who develop the web site, so they can decide what to
do with it.

Joachim




Caolan McNamara wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 11:40 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:
>> This platform cannot be obtained currently using the bootstrap API, for
>> example:
>>
>>                  OUString os( RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("$_OS") );
>>                  ::rtl::Bootstrap::expandMacros( os );
>>
>> We use $_OS and $_ARCH to obtain platform information.
>
>> Possible values
>> are defined in rtl/source/macro.hxx. ppc64 is currently not support.
>
> True, ppc64 is detected in that list as simply "ppc" with no
> distinction from ppc32, which is the same situation as the 32bit s390
> vs 64bit s390x. And the two different ABIs possibilities for arm are
> both simply recorded as ARM and also both the endian variants for MIPS
> are not distinguished between in macro.hxx
>
> It was never previously a problem from the point of view that it wasn't
> necessary to distinguish between them in sal to successful build OOo.
> With the other sizeof(long) stuff taking care of the 32bit/64bit
> differences and build-time logic selecting which uno bridge to build.
>
>> Are s390x arm_eabi, arm_oabi, mips_el, mips_eb names for particular CPU
>> types? If so, then the bootstrap API should be extended accordingly.
>
> Well the eabi vs oabi are two different ABIs that are possible for ARM,
> with the eabi being the new one. The CPU is the same, but most distros
> basically treat them as two different CPUS. If it is important then I
> can clean up the macros.hxx to enumerate explicitly and distinguish
> binary incompatible platforms from each other so there's a unique
> THIS_ARCH for each.
>
>> However, currently we  could add
>> linux_arm
>> linux_mips
>
> btw, where do these get added ? Are they being added e.g. to some sort
> of "these are the extensions available for your platform" section of a
> website ?
>
> C.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Shaun McDonald-2

On 31 Mar 2008, at 13:03, Joachim Lingner wrote:

> Thanks Caolan for explaining that to me.
> I need the platform descriptions for the Extension Manager.  
> Currently one can install an extension on any platform, no matter  
> for what platform the extension is intended. In the future the  
> Extension Manager should refuse to install an extension when it  
> cannot work on the user's system.
> To achieve this, the extension contains a platform token and the  
> Extension Manager checks if this token represents the current  
> platform.

Are you going to be able to run an extension on multiple platforms?  
Such as one that has been built as a Universal Binary for Mac OS X  
Intel and PPC? Or doesn't have platform specific code?
> [...][
> Currently it is only planned to have the Extension Manager check the  
> platform during installation.

In a networked environment you could be using the same openoffice  
preferences on multiple platform (more commonly just separate  
architectures).
[...]

Shaun
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Caolán McNamara
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 14:03 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:
> Anyway, I would not wait until your CWS is integrated, because then I'm
> afraid that my CWS will not be accepted for OOo 3.0 anymore. But we can
> add additional platforms later on.

Oh yeah, don't block on any of the ones I mentioned, they're of err...
"specialized interest" is the most charitable description for a lot of
them, I don't really expect a lot of extensions to be built for OOo on
mainframe linux.

>  >> However, currently we  could add
>  >> linux_arm
>  >> linux_mips

Of these "confused" arch names then yeah, just add those two that are
the most potentially useful at the moment. That covers the lemote OOo
people and their mips(le)-based system and anyone that can successfully
fits the OOo port onto an arm-eabi nokia device.

C.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Shaun McDonald wrote:

>
> On 31 Mar 2008, at 13:03, Joachim Lingner wrote:
>
>> Thanks Caolan for explaining that to me.
>> I need the platform descriptions for the Extension Manager. Currently
>> one can install an extension on any platform, no matter for what
>> platform the extension is intended. In the future the Extension
>> Manager should refuse to install an extension when it cannot work on
>> the user's system.
>> To achieve this, the extension contains a platform token and the
>> Extension Manager checks if this token represents the current platform.
>
> Are you going to be able to run an extension on multiple platforms? Such
> as one that has been built as a Universal Binary for Mac OS X Intel and
> PPC? Or doesn't have platform specific code?


You will be able to add several platform token in the description.xml:
<platform value="macosx_x86,macosx_ppc />
>> [...][
>> Currently it is only planned to have the Extension Manager check the
>> platform during installation.
>
> In a networked environment you could be using the same openoffice
> preferences on multiple platform (more commonly just separate
> architectures).
This problem has not been addressed yet. However, UNO services are
registered for a particular platform. For example, an extension
containing a service for Windows is installed (on Windows). Then the
user runs a Linux version and tries to access that service. The service
will not be available.

Joachim


> [...]
>
> Shaun


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Rene Engelhard-7
In reply to this post by Caolán McNamara
Caolan McNamara wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 14:03 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:
> > Anyway, I would not wait until your CWS is integrated, because then I'm
> > afraid that my CWS will not be accepted for OOo 3.0 anymore. But we can
> > add additional platforms later on.
>
> Oh yeah, don't block on any of the ones I mentioned, they're of err...
> "specialized interest" is the most charitable description for a lot of
> them, I don't really expect a lot of extensions to be built for OOo on
> mainframe linux.

Not a lot. Especially not extensions we don't ship in distros.

But the extensions we ship in Debian which are binaries
(http://packages.debian.org/openoffice.org-presentation-minimizer and
http://packages.debian.org/openoffice.org-ogltrans) are built for s390
too, as OOo is built for s390.

And I filed a bug against openoffice.org-voikko
(p://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472815) to build against
ia64 and s390, too.

Regards,

Rene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Maho NAKATA-2
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Hi

From: Joachim Lingner <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [porting-dev] What platforms do we have?
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:28:34 +0200

> macosx_ppc
> os2_x86

> >> freebsd_x86_64
please add freebsd_x86

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Caolan McNamara wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 14:03 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:
>> Anyway, I would not wait until your CWS is integrated, because then I'm
>> afraid that my CWS will not be accepted for OOo 3.0 anymore. But we can
>> add additional platforms later on.
>
> Oh yeah, don't block on any of the ones I mentioned, they're of err...
> "specialized interest" is the most charitable description for a lot of
> them, I don't really expect a lot of extensions to be built for OOo on
> mainframe linux.
>
>>  >> However, currently we  could add
>>  >> linux_arm
>>  >> linux_mips
>
> Of these "confused" arch names then yeah, just add those two that are
> the most potentially useful at the moment. That covers the lemote OOo
> people and their mips(le)-based system and anyone that can successfully
> fits the OOo port onto an arm-eabi nokia device.

Changing the value of $_ARCH is incompatible but I do not see and
believe that it is used for MIPS and ARM. Grepping through OOo code did
not show me that any code depends on the variable. This is not to be
confused with the preprocessor defines. Therefore let me get back to
your earlier offer to adapt the bootstrap code, that is, the macro.hxx.
There probably needs to be done something in the build environment as
well, such as setting some compiler defines. You probably know that
better than I :)

I already added to my code these values:
PowerPC_64
ARM_EABI
ARM_OABI
MIPS_EL
MIPS_EB
S390x

If you code these values for macro.hxx then it should work right out of
the box (keeping my fingers crossed :)  ). Please put me on cc, so I can
track you CWS. I will prepare some test extension, so you can verify if
everything works (provided that you have the proper machines at hand).

Joachim

>
> C.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Done.

Joachim

Maho NAKATA wrote:

> Hi
>
> From: Joachim Lingner <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [porting-dev] What platforms do we have?
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:28:34 +0200
>
>> macosx_ppc
>> os2_x86
>
>>>> freebsd_x86_64
> please add freebsd_x86
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
Rene Engelhard wrote:

> Caolan McNamara wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 14:03 +0200, Joachim Lingner wrote:
>>> Anyway, I would not wait until your CWS is integrated, because then I'm
>>> afraid that my CWS will not be accepted for OOo 3.0 anymore. But we can
>>> add additional platforms later on.
>> Oh yeah, don't block on any of the ones I mentioned, they're of err...
>> "specialized interest" is the most charitable description for a lot of
>> them, I don't really expect a lot of extensions to be built for OOo on
>> mainframe linux.
>
> Not a lot. Especially not extensions we don't ship in distros.
>
> But the extensions we ship in Debian which are binaries
> (http://packages.debian.org/openoffice.org-presentation-minimizer and
> http://packages.debian.org/openoffice.org-ogltrans) are built for s390
> too, as OOo is built for s390.
>
> And I filed a bug against openoffice.org-voikko
> (p://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472815) to build against
> ia64 and s390, too.

ia64 and s390 is already available as $_ARCH bootstrap variable and will
of course be used by the Extension Manager.



Joachim
>
> Regards,
>
> Rene
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Joachim Lingner - Sun Germany Software Engineer - ham02 - Hamburg
I have added a page to the wiki which shows the platforms  which can be
used with this "feature".
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Target_Platform

Joachim


Joachim Lingner schrieb:

> Hi all,
>
> I am going to implement a warning when one tries to install an extension
> on a platform which it does not support. Therefore I need to know the
> currently supported and maintained platforms. Only those platforms are
> of interest for which there will be an OOo 3.0 build.
>
> This is my list:
> windows_x86
> linux_x86
> linux_x86_64
> solaris_sparc
> solaris_sparc64
> solaris_x86
> freebsd_x86_64
> macosx_x86
>
> I hope the names speak for themselves. The list is not final and will be
>  expanded in future versions if there is need for it.
>
> Regards,
> Joachim
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What platforms do we have?

Maho NAKATA-2
Hi Joachim
I verified and FreeBSD part.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Target_Platform
thanks
-- Nakata Maho ([hidden email])

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]