| 1 |
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:20:03 +1100 |
| 2 |
Chris Smart <taskara@××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Greetings, |
| 5 |
> Just curious if anyone has had any success actually /compiling/ |
| 6 |
> openoffice 2.0 (from the portage ebuild) on an amd64 platform? |
| 7 |
> or are people using openoffice-bin or a chroot environment? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Hi Chris, |
| 10 |
there is an openoffice ebuild on f.g.o [1] for the testversion of |
| 11 |
OpenOffice.org with ooo-build patchset which compiles on amd64. |
| 12 |
Even with 64bit sun-jdk-1.5.x but breaks then on registration of |
| 13 |
java bits at packaging stage. The tester I got will try with gcj-4 |
| 14 |
these days. |
| 15 |
If you build that testversion without java support it merges I guess. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There are still some things to know: |
| 18 |
- gcc3 visibility feature is broken on amd64 for OOo2 |
| 19 |
- OpenOffice.org code is partly five years old ... bla bla bla |
| 20 |
- 64bit hacks are planned for OOo 2.0.x |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Why I call it 64bit hacks? |
| 23 |
That patchset for 64bit support lets OpenOffice.org compile on amd64 |
| 24 |
but then runtime is still unstable. One thing is to make OpenOffice.org |
| 25 |
compile on amd64. The other thing is to make OpenOffice.org runtime |
| 26 |
stable. That means some code just does not need fixing but a full |
| 27 |
rewrite from scratch until it works nicely on amd64. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If I say something wrong anyone please correct me! Thanks. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Sincerely, |
| 33 |
Hanno Meyer-Thurow |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-195406.html |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives