| 1 |
On 2005-11-30 08:12:34 +0100 (Wed, Nov), Kristian Poul Herkild wrote: |
| 2 |
> Joseph wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from |
| 5 |
> >binary. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for |
| 8 |
> >7-hours already. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> It's likely to take somewhere around 8-11 hours on such a machine. It |
| 13 |
> took somewhere around 10 hours for me on a 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB RAM. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's |
| 16 |
> more fun ;) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes! Oh yes! ;-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
AFAIK in OO version 1 it was the only (almost the only) way to have |
| 21 |
localized version - LINGUAS or LANGUAGE variable. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As I can see in ebuild it is no longer true in 2.0, so I also think that |
| 24 |
it's just like the Gentoo Stage 1 Installation - "You can brag about |
| 25 |
doing stage 1". :-) |
| 26 |
(I did stage 1, and I will compile OpenOffice - even version 2) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
No virus found in this outgoing message. |
| 30 |
Checked by 'grep -i virus $MESSAGE' |
| 31 |
Trust me. |
Archives