1 |
On Sunday 12 September 2004 02:24, Robert Moss wrote: |
2 |
> If you're bothered, check out OpenOffice 1.9.52. That builds fine. Don't |
3 |
> forget, every GCC 3.x for new x hasn't compiled OpenOffice when it went |
4 |
> to ~x86. 3.3 hit and 3.2 was needed. 3.2 hit and it didn't compile at |
5 |
> all. 3.1 was pre-OOo I think. We're not doing anything out of the ordinary. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> However, I'd be inclined to suggest that perhaps a 1.9.52 OOo ebuild, |
8 |
> package.mask'd and -* keyworded, should perhaps be committed for testing |
9 |
> purposes. Any objections? If not, I'll make the tarball and ebuild - it |
10 |
> works here but my ebuild is filthy. Also when 2.0 is released the 64-bit |
11 |
> fixes will be merged too. |
12 |
|
13 |
If you could post them on bugzilla (not the tarball of course, but a link) |
14 |
that would be nice. Assign them to openoffice@g.o |
15 |
|
16 |
Paul |
17 |
|
18 |
-- |
19 |
Paul de Vrieze |
20 |
Gentoo Developer |
21 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
22 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |