Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 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 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB RAM. Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's more fun ;) - Kristian Poul Herkild begin:vcard fn:Uwe Klosa n:Klosa;Uwe org:Uppsala University;Electronic Publishing Centre adr:;;;Uppsala;;75120;Sweden email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:+46 (0)18 471 7658 url:http://publications.uu.se/epcentre version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 last time. Dale :-) begin:vcard fn:Uwe Klosa n:Klosa;Uwe org:Uppsala University;Electronic Publishing Centre adr:;;;Uppsala;;75120;Sweden email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:+46 (0)18 471 7658 url:http://publications.uu.se/epcentre version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 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 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 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB RAM. Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's more fun ;) - Kristian Poul Herkild -- William Kenworthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home! -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 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. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 take somewhere around 8-11 hours on such a machine. It took somewhere around 10 hours for me on a 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB RAM. Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's more fun ;) Yes! Oh yes! ;-) AFAIK in OO version 1 it was the only (almost the only) way to have localized version - LINGUAS or LANGUAGE variable. As I can see in ebuild it is no longer true in 2.0, so I also think that it's just like the Gentoo Stage 1 Installation - You can brag about doing stage 1. :-) (I did stage 1, and I will compile OpenOffice - even version 2) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by 'grep -i virus $MESSAGE' Trust me. pgpfXWlXlZR54.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 version opens faster than the binary version. As I remember, the difference was roughly 7 seconds. It seems like an eternity these days but if I weigh that 7 seconds against the time it took to compile, I would have to open the application around 4,100 times to make the 8 hours it took to compile worth my while. 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 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 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB RAM. Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's more fun ;) - Kristian Poul Herkild -- Regards, Ernie 100% Microsoft and Intel free 08:23:40 up 18:10, 5 users, load average: 0.09, 0.23, 0.35 Linux 2.6.5-gentoo-r1 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 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 like an eternity these days but if I weigh that 7 seconds against the time it took to compile, I would have to open the application around 4,100 times to make the 8 hours it took to compile worth my while. 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 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 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB RAM. Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's more fun ;) - Kristian Poul Herkild Well, this is what I have to worry about: Downloading http://gentoo.osuosl.org/distfiles/OOO_2_0_0-core.tar.bz2 --07:39:04-- http://gentoo.osuosl.org/distfiles/OOO_2_0_0-core.tar.bz2 = `/usr/portage/distfiles/OOO_2_0_0-core.tar.bz2' Resolving gentoo.osuosl.org... 64.50.238.52, 64.50.236.52 Connecting to gentoo.osuosl.org|64.50.238.52|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 157,108,531 (150M) [application/x-tar] 0% [ ] 1,019,392 2.78K/s ETA 15:29:44 15 hours to download just that part. There is likely to be even more than that. I still like to compile my own. It is why I chose Gentoo, everything is from source. If I wanted binaries, I could have stuck with Mandrake. Plus as someone said above, it is more fun. Dale :-) -- To err is human, I'm most certainly human. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 symptom. -- #Joseph -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 like an eternity these days but if I weigh that 7 seconds against the time it took to compile, I would have to open the application around 4,100 times to make the 8 hours it took to compile worth my while. Except that you don't sit and watch it compile (unless you are exceptionally sad :) whereas the extra time taken to load when you are trying to do something seems like an eternity. -- Neil Bothwick Q. How many mice does it take to screw in a light bulb? A. Only two - but it's difficult to get them in there. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 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 gratification. -- Regards, Ernie 100% Microsoft and Intel free 09:29:51 up 19:16, 5 users, load average: 0.06, 0.16, 0.32 Linux 2.6.5-gentoo-r1 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
-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 emerge it in the moment but starts at night. - -- Arturo Buanzo Busleiman - www.buanzo.com.ar Consultor en Seguridad Informatica / Dominio Digital TV - Da FOSS man! KTP Consultores - info AT ktpconsultores.com.ar Romper un sistema de seguridad los acerca tanto a ser hackers como el encender autos puenteando los convierte en ingenieros automotrices. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDjbl8AlpOsGhXcE0RAteNAJ9ycC0sMzWGtxKqVRao3Q6nV2etBwCfe88v rggi9WZjR+tFVp3V7H6Y+Tg= =VKTk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
-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 Seguridad Informatica / Dominio Digital TV - Da FOSS man! KTP Consultores - info AT ktpconsultores.com.ar Romper un sistema de seguridad los acerca tanto a ser hackers como el encender autos puenteando los convierte en ingenieros automotrices. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDjbphAlpOsGhXcE0RAr2NAJ485ZrGtSx+0xLmBs3smJhSplEf9gCffmXT 9onPxey+faBpvmP5AxeKw/I= =hlGE -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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: PORTAGE_NICENESS=19 Compiling a new proggie slows the system down a little bit, but I can still run anything I want and use my system while building something else to play with. -- Phil My Home Page: http://fancypiper.info Our 2nd CD: http://www.cdbaby.com/naomisfancy Naomi's Fancy performances: http://naomisfancy.virtualave.net/schedule.html -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 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 symptom. begin:vcard fn:Uwe Klosa n:Klosa;Uwe org:Uppsala University;Electronic Publishing Centre adr:;;;Uppsala;;75120;Sweden email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:+46 (0)18 471 7658 url:http://publications.uu.se/epcentre version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 version? I had a binary version installed, so what I did was un-merge binary version 1.x first and compile OO 2.0 from source code. -- #Joseph 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 symptom. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 from an older OO version? I had a binary version installed, so what I did was un-merge binary version 1.x first and compile OO 2.0 from source code. He probably meant your user-settings. Kristian Poul Herkild -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 sleep so I end up, in this case, and for firefox, going for the immediate gratification. Setting PORTAGE_NICENESS in /etc/make.conf helps. -- Neil Bothwick A printer consists of three main parts: the case, the jammed paper tray and the blinking red light. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 install with the source code version. Uwe What do you mean import your settings from an older OO version? I had a binary version installed, so what I did was un-merge binary version 1.x first and compile OO 2.0 from source code. He probably meant your user-settings. Kristian Poul Herkild I've noticed that there is a hidden folder setting of OO1.1.5 version called: .openoffice and new hidden folder setting of OO2.0 called: .ooo-2.0 I did not import any settings, I just open old spreadsheed file (that has a macro) and save it as a new format. Am I suppose to import any settings? By the way is it save to delete old OO1.1.5 hidden folder settings before I convert all the files to new format? -- #Joseph -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 gratification. Allow me to help make it so you won't even know it is compiling. I wouldn't want it to slow down your playing poker. ;) Put this in make.conf: # # PORTAGE_NICENESS provides a default increment to emerge's niceness level. # Note: This is an increment. Running emerge in a niced environment will # reduce it further. Default is unset. PORTAGE_NICENESS=1 1 or above is fine. My KDE runs at 0 so it gets enough priority to make it seem it is not compiling anything at all. Someone mentioned running a CPU at 95 % before. I run folding on all my rigs so it is going to run anyway whether I am compiling OO.O or not. Dale:-) -- To err is human, I'm most certainly human. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 man rsync) e.g. rsync -Pv --stats --bwlimit=2 filename . wget has a similar option. BB (Before Broadband!) I set this for both wget and rsync in /etc/make.conf. wget will usually download faster on high quality connections than rsync, but overall, if you have a seed file, rsync wins hands down. The bandwidth option is useful if you still want to use the link whilst downloading. Both rsync and wget request chunks of the file, then wait an amount of time before getting the next chunk. This averages out to the required throughput, but some apps did not deal with this very well (p[arrallel scp downloads slowed to a crawl for instance, leaving a large part of the available bw unused. Best bet in this case is to try and find a local person with broadband who will download and burn to cd for you. I used to use a modem for gentoo for a few years and know what you are up against - but I think its worse for the binary distros as I found I was downloading whole CD's on a regular basis - and thats a whole lot worse than OO! BillK On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:49 -0600, Dale wrote: Ernie Schroder wrote: ... Well, this is what I have to worry about: ... -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 link drops out halfway. Make sure you use the -P option (read man rsync) e.g. rsync -Pv --stats --bwlimit=2 filename . wget has a similar option. BB (Before Broadband!) I set this for both wget and rsync in /etc/make.conf. wget will usually download faster on high quality connections than rsync, but overall, if you have a seed file, rsync wins hands down. The bandwidth option is useful if you still want to use the link whilst downloading. Both rsync and wget request chunks of the file, then wait an amount of time before getting the next chunk. This averages out to the required throughput, but some apps did not deal with this very well (p[arrallel scp downloads slowed to a crawl for instance, leaving a large part of the available bw unused. Best bet in this case is to try and find a local person with broadband who will download and burn to cd for you. I used to use a modem for gentoo for a few years and know what you are up against - but I think its worse for the binary distros as I found I was downloading whole CD's on a regular basis - and thats a whole lot worse than OO! BillK good option for slow networks is getdelta.sh described in http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=215262 saves something like 90%, especially good with big distfiles martins -- Linux 2.6.15-rc2 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ 04:25:24 up 13:37, 6 users, load average: 0.18, 0.23, 0.78 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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
Re: [gentoo-user] openoffice 2.0 - compiling or binary
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 1500 MHz Athlon XP with 1 GB RAM. Whether or not you can benefit from compiling is unknown to me. But it's more fun ;) - Kristian Poul Herkild -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
