Hi, On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 02:16:09PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > # file /usr/share/libreoffice/sdk/classes/win/unowinreg.dll > > /usr/share/libreoffice/sdk/classes/win/unowinreg.dll: PE32 executable (DLL) > > (console) Intel 80386 (stripped to external PDB), for MS Windows > > > > i686-w64-mingw32-g++ is called. > > that's different from mingw-w64, then.
Wrong. that is mingw-64. peter already said that, though. > >> simply wouldn't even run on an ARM processor anyway seems to have > >> entirely escaped everyone's attention. > > > > No. In contast, Stephen said it correctly. > > actually, he didn't: in the public post he didn't mention that it was > purely for shipping with the *windows* version of libreoffice, so that That's wrong anyway. The windows version of libreoffice doesn't even ship it either. It's the *SDK* shipping this. On all archs. For being ale to create cross-platform Java stuff there (which also then runs on windows as intended) > people who perform development on gnu/linux of libreoffice > applications can ship the libreoffice application with that DLL *such > that* the *windows* version of libreoffice will actually work and have > access to the windows dll. He said that, sorry. --- snip --- [...] is supposed to be bundled with plugins which need to access the registry, and therefore to be able to correctly build "shippable" plugins [...] --- snip --- > your bullying and lack of forgiveness is duly noted. And you do have one? I didn't see it formulated in your unpolite mail at least. Regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120226202859.gj17...@rene-engelhard.de
