On Thursday 01 December 2005 03:17, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> Use rsync. I am not sure how much gain there is to be had but try using
> an older version as the seed file - should save at least a little.
> Creative use of head/tail with seed files and already downloaded
> portions can save a lot if the
Use rsync. I am not sure how much gain there is to be had but try using
an older version as the seed file - should save at least a little.
Creative use of head/tail with seed files and already downloaded
portions can save a lot if the link drops out halfway.
Make sure you use the -P option (read
Ernie Schroder wrote:
>Actually Neil, you're right, the 8 hours that it takes to build OO is not down
>time, but try playing poker on-line while it's running. I can never remember
>to do those long builds while I sleep so I end up, in this case, and for
>firefox, going for the immediate gratifi
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 08:30 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> I would have to open the application around 4,100 times to
> make the 8 hours it took to compile worth my while.
I don't know if compiling take much effect on your ability to do other
tasks.
I've been compiling on the machine that runs As
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:48 +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:01 +0100, Uwe Klosa wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Did you import your settings from an older OO version? I had that issue
> >>with the binary version upgrading from 1.x. So I did a clean
> >>inst
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:35:48 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> Actually Neil, you're right, the 8 hours that it takes to build OO is
> not down time, but try playing poker on-line while it's running.
No thanks, I'm broke enough as it is :(
I can
> never remember to do those long builds while I sl
Joseph wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:01 +0100, Uwe Klosa wrote:
Did you import your settings from an older OO version? I had that issue with the binary version upgrading from 1.x. So I did a clean
install with the source code version.
Uwe
What do you mean "import your settings fr
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:01 +0100, Uwe Klosa wrote:
> Did you import your settings from an older OO version? I had that issue with
> the binary version upgrading from 1.x. So I did a clean
> install with the source code version.
>
> Uwe
What do you mean "import your settings from an older OO v
Did you import your settings from an older OO version? I had that issue with the binary version upgrading from 1.x. So I did a clean
install with the source code version.
Uwe
Joseph wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:00 +0100, Uwe Klosa wrote:
I have used both versions. The compiled version see
Ernie Schroder wrote:
I've recently done 11 months worth of updates on this box and have about 40
hours of build time on it in the last 10 days. I want to use it, not watch
more text fly by on the console.
Try compiling it at a lower priority.
I just put this in my /etc/make.conf file:
PORTA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
> Well, I wrote a latemerge script that sets up an "at" cron job :P - So, I
> emerge it in the
> moment but starts at night.
sed -e 's/cron//'
- --
Arturo "Buanzo" Busleiman - www.buanzo.com.ar
Consultor en Segur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ernie Schroder wrote:
> time, but try playing poker on-line while it's running. I can never remember
> to do those long builds while I sleep so I end up, in this case, and for
Well, I wrote a latemerge script that sets up an "at" cron job :P - So, I
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 09:18 am, a tiny voice compelled Neil Bothwick
to write:
> Except that you don't sit and watch it compile (unless you are
> exceptionally sad
You mean you don't have to keep watch over long compiles? I guess I have no
life.
Actually Neil, you're right, the 8 hours
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:24 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> I've installed OO both ways in the past and stability hasn't been an
> issue. The only thing I noticed is that the compiled version opens
> faster than the binary version. As I remember, the difference was
> roughly 7 seconds. It seems li
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:00 +0100, Uwe Klosa wrote:
> I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable on my
> system.
>
> Uwe
[snip]
I've compile OO 2.0 without any errors.
But when I just open and save a spreadsheet OO 2.0 crashed on me with
[signal.11].
Not a good sy
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 08:49 am, a tiny voice compelled Dale to write:
> Ernie Schroder wrote:
> >On Wednesday 30 November 2005 03:00 am, a tiny voice compelled Uwe Klosa
> > to
> >
> >write:
> >>I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable
> >> on my system.
> >
>
Ernie Schroder wrote:
>On Wednesday 30 November 2005 03:00 am, a tiny voice compelled Uwe Klosa to
>write:
>
>
>>I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable on
>>my system.
>>
>>
>
>I've installed OO both ways in the past and stability hasn't been an issue.
>The
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 03:00 am, a tiny voice compelled Uwe Klosa to
write:
> I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable on
> my system.
I've installed OO both ways in the past and stability hasn't been an issue.
The only thing I noticed is that the compiled v
On 2005-11-30 08:12:34 +0100 (Wed, Nov), Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
>
> >Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from
> >binary.
> >
> >I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for
> >7-hours already.
> >
> >
> >
> It's likely to tak
Uh Oh. Here goes my dial-up. I only get 26K here. Last time it took
three nights to get it all, about 24 hours total.
I may go visit my friend that has DSL. LOL
Dale
:-)
Uwe Klosa wrote:
> The first file is only 32MB. There are more to come. :)
>
> Uwe
>
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Uwe Klosa wrote:
I'll agree here: I sometimes download a new binary to test before seeing
if I really want it - then compile it. Compiled is usually subjectively
faster, and definitely more stable.
Besides, as someone else put it, its more fun ...
BillK
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:00 +0100, Uwe Klosa wrote:
> I h
The first file is only 32MB. There are more to come. :)
Uwe
Dale wrote:
Uwe Klosa wrote:
I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more
stable on my system.
Uwe
I always compile mine to. It is downloading it now. Why is it only
32MBs this time? It was over 200MBs las
Uwe Klosa wrote:
> I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more
> stable on my system.
>
> Uwe
>
I always compile mine to. It is downloading it now. Why is it only
32MBs this time? It was over 200MBs last time.
Dale
:-)
--
To err is human, I'm most certainly human.
--
I have used both versions. The compiled version seems to be more stable on my
system.
Uwe
Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Joseph wrote:
Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from
binary.
I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for
7-hours alread
Joseph wrote:
Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from
binary.
I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for
7-hours already.
It's likely to take somewhere around 8-11 hours on such a machine. It
took somewhere around 10 hours for me on a 15
Is there a benefit of compiling Openoffice 2.0 vs. installing from
binary.
I've AMD 1.8Mhz with 1Gb or Ram and it has been compiling OO 2.0 for
7-hours already.
--
#Joseph
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
26 matches
Mail list logo
