I have also found that OOo is much more stable when compiled from source than when just installed with pre-compiled binaries. I have some pretty aggressive Cflaggs (IMHO):
CFLAGS="-march=athlon-xp -O3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -fforce-addr
-falign-functions=64 -mfpmath=sse,387"
And have not had any compile problems with OO, however that could be
because the ebuild disregarded them, but whatever it still compiled for
me. I would like to see a 1.1beta source ebuild instead of the binary
merge. Good luck, also if you leave it to compile at night when you
wake up it will be done, no lost productivity time ;)
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 03:36, Ohad Lutzky wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:14:20AM -0300, Norberto BENSA wrote:
> Content-Description: signed data
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ date ; echo ${GXzim}
> > Saturday 14 June 2003 12:00 am
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I started merging openoffice and it�s really taking
> > > it�s time [about 5 hours] and it�s not yet done. My
> > > question is why can�t I go to openoffice.org and
> > > download the tar ball and install it from there, it
> > > would have take no more than 10 minuts I believe. Is
> > > it better to merge packages than to download and
> > > install them manually? Why does it take longer to
> > > merge a package then to insall it from source (e.g.
> > > openoffice)?
> > >
> >
> > Errr... OOo 1.0.3-r1 took 9hs to build here (p31g, 256mb)
> >
> > "emerge openoffice-bin" if you don't want to wait. I did, but -bin-1.0.0 was
> > soooo slooooowwww :-/ Now 1.0.3 compiled from source it really fast! :-)
> >
> > Norberto
>
> Is it really that much faster? I have a PIII 450mhz machine (5 hours?
> heh, I wouldn't even expect KDE to compile in that time), so I've been
> using the binary ebuilds so far. Also, IIRC, compiling OO from source
> strips out the optimization. The OpenOffice.org source is pretty
> fragile, and optimizations (especially GCC3's) will give you a good
> chance of a failed compilation.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
