[gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Dan Armak]

Hi everyone,

I've been working on an app-office/openoffice ebuild, but have had some 
trouble. I believe it can be compiled, but a successful compile would take 
(according to the docs) 12 hours and over 2gb of temp space, so I don't want 
to try and compile it a third time. (It failed two times, I fixed two 
problems.)

So anyone who's interested, please work on it. It's in cvs (masked); there 
are detailed comments inside the ebuild no its current status. Mail me for 
any info if you think I've done strange things in it.

-- 

Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

tor 2001-12-06 klockan 21.47 skrev Dan Armak:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I've been working on an app-office/openoffice ebuild, but have had some 
> trouble. I believe it can be compiled, but a successful compile would take 
> (according to the docs) 12 hours and over 2gb of temp space, so I don't want 
> to try and compile it a third time. (It failed two times, I fixed two 
> problems.)

Hi!

Does anyone want to compile this or can't we just use the binary release
and put it in /opt?

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal
 
-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Geert Bevin]

I can launch a compile later on today on a machine. But it's a PII 450
so I really don't know how long it will build.

On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 08:12, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> tor 2001-12-06 klockan 21.47 skrev Dan Armak:
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > I've been working on an app-office/openoffice ebuild, but have had some 
> > trouble. I believe it can be compiled, but a successful compile would take 
> > (according to the docs) 12 hours and over 2gb of temp space, so I don't want 
> > to try and compile it a third time. (It failed two times, I fixed two 
> > problems.)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Does anyone want to compile this or can't we just use the binary release
> and put it in /opt?
> 
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal
-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Joshua Pollak]

It seems like for an application like this, perhaps the best thing to do 
would be to launch their default installer or something... perhaps track the 
files that are installed somehow or something? Or just use the binary 
release. I can't imagine anyone willing to spend 12 hours and 2 gigs to 
compile something they can just download in binary form from the website. 
Perhaps I'm wrong about that though. ;)

On Friday 07 December 2001 2:12, you wrote:
> tor 2001-12-06 klockan 21.47 skrev Dan Armak:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've been working on an app-office/openoffice ebuild, but have had some
> > trouble. I believe it can be compiled, but a successful compile would

> Does anyone want to compile this or can't we just use the binary release
> and put it in /opt?
>
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Daniel Robbins]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:12:08AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Does anyone want to compile this or can't we just use the binary release
> and put it in /opt?

It sounds like this solution would be best for a majority of users.  We can
have two ebuilds (one sources and one binary).

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]

fre 2001-12-07 klockan 22.06 skrev Daniel Robbins:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:12:08AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > Does anyone want to compile this or can't we just use the binary release
> > and put it in /opt?
> 
> It sounds like this solution would be best for a majority of users.  We can
> have two ebuilds (one sources and one binary).

Thats probably the best solution. I think that before any developer is
willing to spend a weekend getting this beast (and I used to think
Mozilla was a beast :) to compile we should add the binary-version so
that people can start using it.

>From what I've heard from my managers who use it the latest version was
a big step up speed-wise.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Taras]

On Thu, 2001-12-06 at 23:12, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> tor 2001-12-06 klockan 21.47 skrev Dan Armak:
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > I've been working on an app-office/openoffice ebuild, but have had some 
> > trouble. I believe it can be compiled, but a successful compile would take 
> > (according to the docs) 12 hours and over 2gb of temp space, so I don't want 
> > to try and compile it a third time. (It failed two times, I fixed two 
> > problems.)
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Does anyone want to compile this or can't we just use the binary release
> and put it in /opt?
Considering the speed of openoffice, it would be nice to be able to compile an optimized
build to get more juice out of it.
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal
>  
> -- 
> 
> Mikael Hallendal
> Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
> CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Zach Forrest]

I'm both shocked and amazed at the speed improvements.

Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> fre 2001-12-07 klockan 22.06 skrev Daniel Robbins:
> 
>>On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:12:08AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
>>
>>>Hi!
>>>
>>>Does anyone want to compile this or can't we just use the binary release
>>>and put it in /opt?
>>>
>>It sounds like this solution would be best for a majority of users.  We can
>>have two ebuilds (one sources and one binary).
>>
> 
> Thats probably the best solution. I think that before any developer is
> willing to spend a weekend getting this beast (and I used to think
> Mozilla was a beast :) to compile we should add the binary-version so
> that people can start using it.
> 
>>From what I've heard from my managers who use it the latest version was
> a big step up speed-wise.
> 
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Dan Nelson]

On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 01:48, Geert Bevin wrote:
> I can launch a compile later on today on a machine. But it's a PII 450
> so I really don't know how long it will build.
> 

I just got done compiling build 641 on my RC6 box.  It took about 25
hours on a PII 450 with 256m of ram.  I didn't use the ebuild to compile
it, but I looked through the existing one and it didn't do anything
different from what I had done manually.  

I'd have to say that I will have to see significant speed improvements
to want to compile openoffice again.

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

tis 2001-12-11 klockan 04.54 skrev Dan Nelson:
> On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 01:48, Geert Bevin wrote:
> > I can launch a compile later on today on a machine. But it's a PII 450
> > so I really don't know how long it will build.
> > 
> 
> I just got done compiling build 641 on my RC6 box.  It took about 25
> hours on a PII 450 with 256m of ram.  I didn't use the ebuild to compile
> it, but I looked through the existing one and it didn't do anything
> different from what I had done manually.  

Haha, this is sick!
 
> I'd have to say that I will have to see significant speed improvements
> to want to compile openoffice again.

Do you see any difference in speed on your own-build compared to the
binary release?

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Zach Forrest]

I've found OpenOffice (the binary) to be quite responsive once it's up. 
It just took me 39sec to load it, which is much faster than I've 
experienced before. (I'm on a PIII 450 w/ 196MB RAM.)

Zach

Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> tis 2001-12-11 klockan 04.54 skrev Dan Nelson:
> 
>>On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 01:48, Geert Bevin wrote:
>>
>>>I can launch a compile later on today on a machine. But it's a PII 450
>>>so I really don't know how long it will build.
>>>
>>>
>>I just got done compiling build 641 on my RC6 box.  It took about 25
>>hours on a PII 450 with 256m of ram.  I didn't use the ebuild to compile
>>it, but I looked through the existing one and it didn't do anything
>>different from what I had done manually.  
>>
> 
> Haha, this is sick!
>  
> 
>>I'd have to say that I will have to see significant speed improvements
>>to want to compile openoffice again.
>>
> 
> Do you see any difference in speed on your own-build compared to the
> binary release?
> 
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] openoffice ebuild (needs maintainer :-)

[Dan Nelson]

On Tue, 2001-12-11 at 09:44, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> Do you see any difference in speed on your own-build compared to the
> binary release?
> 
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal
> 
I didn't find any load time speed improvements over the binary of 638c
and my compiled 641b.  

I haven't used 641b enough to say that the application runs more quickly
for day to day tasks, but then again, i've never been able to overburden
my CPU with the blazing speed with which I type :)