| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Grant Edwards <grante@××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2009-01-21, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> It's funny, I have read a lot of people complain that the binary is the |
| 5 |
>> same way but compiling from source works. Interesting. The reason I |
| 6 |
>> was told I should compile my own is because it was more stable than the |
| 7 |
>> binary. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The first time I tried installing OOo, I did the binary |
| 10 |
> install. It wouldn't run, so since then I've always built it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> How do you figure that OOo from source is not supported? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I've been wondering that as well. I checked the package |
| 15 |
> database and the OOo ebuild is marked as stable for x86. In my |
| 16 |
> book, that's "supported". Of course that's not be the same |
| 17 |
> thing as "practical" for some machines (I believe my OOo emerge |
| 18 |
> just passed hour 31). It would be interesting to know how much |
| 19 |
> further it's go to go, but as long as it's done in a week or so |
| 20 |
> that'll be good enough. I remember building binutils, gcc, |
| 21 |
> X11, emacs, and so on from sources on a 25MHz 68000 with 4MB of |
| 22 |
> RAM -- that took some patience as well. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Latest OOo 3.0 source compile for me took 1hr 34 minutes on my |
| 25 |
dual-core E6600 overclocked to 3ghz with 8 gigs of RAM :P |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
i don't know what that translates to in your machine speed. I have |
| 28 |
6000 bogomips for each core according to /proc/cpuinfo (I know it's |
| 29 |
not a benchmark) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Paul |
Archives