Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Dmitri Pogosyan]

The claim is amd64 compilation is planned for 2.0.2

> Greetings,
> Just curious if anyone has had any success actually /compiling/ 
> openoffice 2.0 (from the portage ebuild) on an amd64 platform?
> or are people using openoffice-bin or a chroot environment?
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> -- 
> gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list



--
Dmitri Pogosyan            Department of Physics
Associate Professor        University of Alberta
tel 1-780-492-2150         412 Avadh Bhatia Physics Labs
fax 1-780-492-0714         Edmonton, AB, T6G 2J1, CANADA


-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Chris Smart]

Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:

>The claim is amd64 compilation is planned for 2.0.2
>  
>
cheers, for some reason I thought you could compile it on an amd64 arch 
but not as an actual 64bit app (ie in 32bit mode using emul).
-c
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-amd64] Re: openoffice 2 compiles?

[Duncan]

Chris Smart posted <437050B6.7000208@internode.on.net>, excerpted below, 
on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:16:06 +1100:

> Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> 
>>The claim is amd64 compilation is planned for 2.0.2
>>  
>>
> cheers, for some reason I thought you could compile it on an amd64 arch 
> but not as an actual 64bit app (ie in 32bit mode using emul).

You should be able to compile it as 32-bit, tho from what I've read it's
easier to do the 32-bit chroot and do it there than chase down whatever
32-bit stuff on 64-bit outside of a chroot.

Among other things, the java stuff is problematic, again, from what I've
read.  For both running the binary package and for compiling from source,
the Java stuff tries to use 64-bit Java, which naturally won't work trying
to link that against 32-bit OOo.  Do it in the chroot, and it can't see
anything 64-bit, so it can't link against it.  It has no choice but to go
32-bit.

Of course, the problem is that if this is your first and only 32-bit app
you really want to compile, doing an entire chroot just for it is a /lot/
of work.  In that case, even I'd probably go with the 32-bit pre-packaged
binary.

Now what might be  the /interesting/ way to do it, for those that have
several machines including some x86 machines, would be to compile it from
source on them, then try to move it over.  (As usual, be very careful
about merging 32-bit packages, binary or not, on 64-bit -- they say don't
do it at all, but if you manually verify that it's not overwriting
anything 64-bit, and manually verify dependencies, it /might/ be made to
work.  If it breaks, tho, you get to keep the pieces!)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Chris Smart]

Greetings,
Just curious if anyone has had any success actually /compiling/ 
openoffice 2.0 (from the portage ebuild) on an amd64 platform?
or are people using openoffice-bin or a chroot environment?

Cheers,
Chris
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Hanno Meyer-Thurow]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:20:03 +1100
Chris Smart <taskara@internode.on.net> wrote:

> Greetings,
> Just curious if anyone has had any success actually /compiling/ 
> openoffice 2.0 (from the portage ebuild) on an amd64 platform?
> or are people using openoffice-bin or a chroot environment?

Hi Chris,
there is an openoffice ebuild on f.g.o [1] for the testversion of
OpenOffice.org with ooo-build patchset which compiles on amd64.
Even with 64bit sun-jdk-1.5.x but breaks then on registration of
java bits at packaging stage. The tester I got will try with gcj-4
these days.
If you build that testversion without java support it merges I guess.

There are still some things to know:
- gcc3 visibility feature is broken on amd64 for OOo2
- OpenOffice.org code is partly five years old ... bla bla bla
- 64bit hacks are planned for OOo 2.0.x

Why I call it 64bit hacks?
That patchset for 64bit support lets OpenOffice.org compile on amd64
but then runtime is still unstable. One thing is to make OpenOffice.org
compile on amd64. The other thing is to make OpenOffice.org runtime
stable. That means some code just does not need fixing but a full
rewrite from scratch until it works nicely on amd64.

If I say something wrong anyone please correct me! Thanks.


Sincerely,
Hanno Meyer-Thurow


[1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-195406.html
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Sebastian Redl]

Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:

>Why I call it 64bit hacks?
>That patchset for 64bit support lets OpenOffice.org compile on amd64
>but then runtime is still unstable. One thing is to make OpenOffice.org
>compile on amd64. The other thing is to make OpenOffice.org runtime
>stable. That means some code just does not need fixing but a full
>rewrite from scratch until it works nicely on amd64.
>
>If I say something wrong anyone please correct me! Thanks.
>  
>
Well, I disagree that the code needs a full rewrite. Why? All it needs 
is correcting all places where it attempts to store pointers in 32-bit 
variables. Admittedly, in the core of UNO this might happen a LOT (due 
to its nature it does a lot of direct memory manipulation), but there's 
no real reason why it should be re-written from scratch.
If the UNO runtime violated other portability issues (such as code 
execution protection), it wouldn't run at all in 64-bit mode, perhaps 
not even when compiled as 32-bit.

Sebastian Redl
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Hanno Meyer-Thurow]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:31:14 +0100
Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at> wrote:

> >If I say something wrong anyone please correct me! Thanks.

> Well, I disagree that the code needs a full rewrite. Why? All it needs 
> is correcting all places where it attempts to store pointers in 32-bit 
> variables. Admittedly, in the core of UNO this might happen a LOT (due 
> to its nature it does a lot of direct memory manipulation), but there's 
> no real reason why it should be re-written from scratch.
> If the UNO runtime violated other portability issues (such as code 
> execution protection), it wouldn't run at all in 64-bit mode, perhaps 
> not even when compiled as 32-bit.

I am no programmer and what you say sure is correct but of what i listened
from some OOo devs is that some parts (big or small) need rewrite to
get stable on amd64. However...

Latest information I read:
http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/ooo/OOoCon-2005/
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Barry.SCHWARTZ]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 937 bytes --]

Hanno Meyer-Thurow <h.mth@web.de> skribis:
> Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at> wrote:
> > Well, I disagree that the code needs a full rewrite. Why? All it needs 
> > is correcting all places where it attempts to store pointers in 32-bit 
> > variables....
>
> I am no programmer and what you say sure is correct but of what i listened
> from some OOo devs is that some parts (big or small) need rewrite to
> get stable on amd64.

I speak programmer. This is jargon meaning the code is so complicated
and/or so poorly understood that it might be easier, faster, more
reliable, better in the long run, and more personally rewarding to
rewrite.  :)

-- 
Barry.SCHWARTZ@chemoelectric.org   http://www.chemoelectric.org
Esperantistoj rajtas skribi al Barijo.SXVARCO@chemoelectric.org
   'And now we're going to go try to comfort people in that
 part of the world.' -- Bush, referring to the southeastern U.S.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Sebastian Redl]

Barry.SCHWARTZ@chemoelectric.org wrote:

>I speak programmer. This is jargon meaning the code is so complicated
>and/or so poorly understood that it might be easier, faster, more
>reliable, better in the long run, and more personally rewarding to
>rewrite.  :)
>
>  
>
I looked at this presentation. It makes me shudder. I'm aware of the 
typical portability problems, but I didn't think OOo was THAT bad.

Sebastian
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles?

[Chris Smart]

Thanks everyone,

I did build OOo on a p3 system, then package the binary and install it 
on the amd64 system, but no go. I might experiment a bit more, but for 
now I agree the easiest thing to do it use openoffice-bin.

Cheers,
Chris
-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list