| 1 |
BOTTOM LINE (even though it's at the top) |
| 2 |
It appears openoffice-bin depends on some things that are not marked |
| 3 |
in the ebuild. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
My attempt to compile openoffice (not bin) failed due to disk space, |
| 6 |
but not until about |
| 7 |
8 dependencies had been compiled. Openoffice-bin had not pulled them in. |
| 8 |
I never did complete the compile. I trimmed distfiles and packages |
| 9 |
and in other ways |
| 10 |
got up to 12 GB free space and emerged openoffice-bin. It runs fine now. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This is not proof for various reasons, but I suspect the additional |
| 13 |
dependencies did |
| 14 |
the trick. Or maybe it was disk space. Not much else changed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
++ kevin |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 19 |
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Dirk Heinrichs |
| 20 |
> <dirk.heinrichs.ext@×××.com> wrote: |
| 21 |
>> Am Donnerstag 25 September 2008 05:37:14 schrieb ext Kevin O'Gorman: |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>>> > openoffice-bin has been compiled with a given set of use flags and on a |
| 24 |
>>> > machine that may or may not match what you have. Compiling it yourself is |
| 25 |
>>> > always the better idea. |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> Not so obviously better when it fails. Here's the tail of what I get: |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> You do have enough free space in the build directory (~6G)? |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> Bye... |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Apparently not. I just had something else fail, and I'm moving stuff around. |
| 35 |
> That's probably a major part of what's plagueing me now. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> ++ kevin |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> -- |
| 41 |
> Kevin O'Gorman, PhD |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD |
Archives