Hi,
(*) The new version lacks the source-hash which was useful to corelate
the bibisect repo to the live repo. Does the date in the new repo
get us close enough?
Each tree comes with a build-info.txt, which contains the top of 'git log' output. I did it that way as sometimes master build was broken, I had to do a local fix, so a single hash would not be useful at all.
(*) Trying to execute soffice from the new version tells me (newlines
added, and truncating leading directory names):
.../soffice.bin: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.17'
not found (required by .../libi18nlangtag.so)
Exited with code '1'
This is on ubuntu-quantal-studio (12.10). My installed version of
libc is the latest one offered, 2.15-0ubuntu20.1.
This is a default build output on openSUSE 12.3. Again, this is an interim step till it'll be sorted out properly on the TDF side, the hope is that in the long term the bibisect repo will be built on the baseline system (RHEL5), which avoids the above problem as well.
Is it an accident that the new bibisect version is more demanding
than "40+" version?
I built it for my personal use, just now when the other one lacked updates since mid-July I came up with the idea of sharing it. So it's one build / workday, not something planned, like "let's build 40 versions between 4.1 branchoff and today", as Bjoern did previously. Miklos
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature