https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172590
--- Comment #3 from Buovjaga <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Alberto Dietze from comment #2) > (In reply to Buovjaga from comment #1) > > I suspect there is a misunderstanding. The paragraph you quoted was me > > quoting AlmaLinux devs. AlmaLinux is the "we" providing an additional > > x86-64-v2 architecture, not LibreOffice. So when LibreOffice bumps the Linux > > build platform baseline next time, it can adopt the x86-64-v2 AlmaLinux > > variety. > > Uhm... well, so you are explaining me that when LO will adopt the "new" > AlmaLinux requirements excluding the v2, no options will provided for the > cpu-v2 owners? In such case, my bad, sorry. I thought it was about LO's plan > to provide v2 support. No, that's not what I said. When the time comes to bump our build baseline to AlmaLinux 10, we will benefit from AlmaLinux's decision to offer alternative binary packages supporting x86-64-v2. In the same way as in the AlmaLinux 9 baseline bump, LibreOffice will not be providing anything less or anything more, it is just the TDF-produced builds being tied to the minimum required microarchitecture. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
