[blfs-support] LibreOffice-3.6 for 7.2

Paul Rogers paulgrogers at fastmail.fm
Thu Jul 2 14:55:15 PDT 2015


> > I decided long ago not to use anybody else's binaries if I could
> > help it.  I want my system to be auditable.  For a long time I had
> > to use Adobe's Flash & Oracle's JRE, but no longer.
>
> Sure, and that's why we use LFS.
>
> But things like this - Java bytecode being platform independent and
> all, it's likely that any given release of a library like Junit is
> compiled exactly *once*, by the person creating a release to upload to
> the Maven repo. It's not going to be recompiled by different distros,
> for different target architectures. It's going to be built once by the
> project maintainer, published to the repo, and then the developers
> move on to developing the next version.

Junit is/was in BLFS with instructions, so I built it myself, satisfying
my auditability rule.  That's what I/we do.  ;-)

>
> > All statically linked into the downloaded package I believe,
> > bloating them and affecting performance.
>
> Nope. There's no such thing as static-linking in the Java world. At
> most, an unnecessary jar file sitting in the classpath will be a
> slight overhead in that it needs to be searched when loading classes.

I wasn't clear.  When you said "download it" I took that to mean LO. I'm
pretty sure LO, FF, TB distributed binaries all are statically linked.
I like to follow the old Linux tradition of being usable on older H/W,
so I want things using shared libraries and minimizing the RAM
commitment.  I may have BUILT LO/FF/TB on an i7 for efficiency, but I
expect everything to RUN on any i686 I may want to put this system on.

> I've never built LO, so I can't give a definitive answer to that. But
> JUnit is just a testing framework (it's utterly ubiquitous in Java
> development), so if you're not running unit tests for LO, it's
> unlikely to be important.

LO will use extensions programmed in Java.  I know it's a lot to ask,
but I'd like it to test them during installation.  8-P

> Ah, just went back and saw this earlier post of yours. Yes, a symlink
> to that file should be fine.

Done.  Just in case it matters, I think I'll rebuild LO --with-junit.  I
can do that while I'm lying on the couch watching TV.

> The file you've got is named according to the common Java conventions
> - package name, version, and the SNAPSHOT suffix indicating it's not
>   an official release (which would just be junit-4.11.jar).

So presumably nothing is going to use those as named and they ALL should
be symlinked?

Thanks, Simon.  This helps with some uncertainties.
-- 
Paul Rogers
paulgrogers at fastmail.fm
Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates."
(I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-)

  	

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - A fast, anti-spam email service.



More information about the blfs-support mailing list