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