#3058 Request to amend LibreOffice 7.6 change proposal #3056
Closed: Invalid by mattia. Opened by mattia.

I'm not sure if I should reopen #3056, so I'll make this as a new request.

Currently LibreOffice in Fedora is built "successfully" on all primary architectures. This is however achieved by excluding a lot of tests which are failing on s390x and ppc64le (and a few on aarch64 also).

After libreoffice-sig takeover from RH we are facing troubles to upgrade the package, as ppc64le is FTB and we can't fix it.

We are therefore considering to build LO only on x86_64 and aarch64 (which are "officially" supported upstream, as those are the architectures where the Flathub LO is built on).
We'd like to stop building on ppc64le as it's FTB and on s390x due to the high number of excluded failing tests which may indicate that the final outcome is probably already unreliable.

We would ask to amend the former F39 change proposal to also include dropping those architectures.
At the best of my knowledge, this would affect these packages:
- OpenLP (noarch only package)
- openoffice.org-diafilter
- python-paperwork-backend (noarch only package)
- unoconv (noarch only package)
- vfrnav

We can make this a change proposal for F40, but that would mean that for F39 the LibreOffice package will miss the 7.6 release, only delaying the impact on other packages.

Finally, the only other alternative (unless someone with proper C skills wants to start patching the code downstream) is to maintain LO 7.5 until EOL, then retire it from Fedora.


Has there been an outreach to ppc64le and s390x folks? IIRC, LibreOffice is commonly used in headless configuration too, so folks who use those arches in server contexts would be interested too.

Has there been an outreach to ppc64le and s390x folks? IIRC, LibreOffice is commonly used in headless configuration too, so folks who use those arches in server contexts would be interested too.

Wrote an email to ppc list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ppc@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JZC72T7PGP33C642WGZREX2QXXPVLJX4/

BTW the ppc64le build failure seems related to boost libraries (upgraded to 1.81 in F39, however there's no compat package to try that assumption).

We definitely have desktop users on ppc64le (me included) and I am going to look into it deeper after the weekend. The ppc64le failure looks like an OOM on the builder.

Closing this, as it turned out that ppc64le failures are OOM related.
No need to exclude any more arches.

Metadata Update from @mattia:
- Issue close_status updated to: Invalid
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

Metadata