Archives
Archives
| From: | Uwe Klosa <uwe.klosa@×××××.se> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary | ||
| Date: | Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:06:31 | ||
| Message-Id: | 438D5C24.2000907@ub.uu.se | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary by Kristian Poul Herkild |
||
| 1 | I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable on my system. |
| 2 | |
| 3 | Uwe |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Kristian Poul Herkild wrote: |
| 6 | > Joseph wrote: |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | >> Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from |
| 9 | >> binary. |
| 10 | >> |
| 11 | >> I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for |
| 12 | >> 7-hours already. |
| 13 | >> |
| 14 | >> |
| 15 | >> |
| 16 | > It's likely to take somewhere around 8-11 hours on such a machine. It |
| 17 | > took somewhere around 10 hours for me on a 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB |
| 18 | > RAM. |
| 19 | > |
| 20 | > Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's |
| 21 | > more fun ;) |
| 22 | > |
| 23 | > - |
| 24 | > Kristian Poul Herkild |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| uwe.klosa.vcf | text/x-vcard |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary | Dale <dalek@××××××××××.net> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary | William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary | Ernie Schroder <schroder@×××××.net> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary | Joseph <syscon@×××××××××.com> |