| 1 |
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:50:47 +0100 |
| 2 |
Hartmut Figge <h.figge@×××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Thanasis: |
| 5 |
> >on 02/18/2012 06:57 PM Neil Bothwick wrote the following: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> >> [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice |
| 8 |
> >> * app-office/libreoffice |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3 |
| 11 |
> >> merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> >Impressive. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yes. Perhaps i should consider using the source myself, because of |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> hafi@i5_64 ~ $ loffice |
| 18 |
> /usr/bin/loffice: line 2: 12258 Illegal instruction |
| 19 |
> /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/soffice "$@" |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> which i just got with an i5. Should i? Should i wait for a fixed |
| 22 |
> libreoffice-bin? Hm. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The case for compiling libreoffice is getting better all the time. Even |
| 25 |
on older slower machines, build time is gradually coming down as the |
| 26 |
ebuild maintainers strip out all the bundled libs that Sun added and |
| 27 |
use system libs instead. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The days of >12 hour compiles for OOo are long gone (thankfully) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives