[gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[econti]

Hi all
I'd like to install OO on my Gentoo PC. I ran

emerge -s openoffice
and here is the result

*  app-office/openoffice
      Latest version available: 2.4.0
      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
      Size of files: 247,060 kB
      Homepage:      http://go-oo.org
      Description:   OpenOffice.org, a full office productivity suite.
      License:       LGPL-2

*  app-office/openoffice-bin
      Latest version available: 2.4.0
      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
      Size of files: 1,149,284 kB
      Homepage:      http://www.openoffice.org/
      Description:   OpenOffice productivity suite
      License:       LGPL-2


Questions:
1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin
2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB 
Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?

:-(

Bye

emilio


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --]

econti schrieb:
> Hi all
> I'd like to install OO on my Gentoo PC. I ran
>
> emerge -s openoffice
> and here is the result
>
> *  app-office/openoffice
>      Latest version available: 2.4.0
>      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>      Size of files: 247,060 kB
>      Homepage:      http://go-oo.org
>      Description:   OpenOffice.org, a full office productivity suite.
>      License:       LGPL-2
>
> *  app-office/openoffice-bin
>      Latest version available: 2.4.0
>      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>      Size of files: 1,149,284 kB
>      Homepage:      http://www.openoffice.org/
>      Description:   OpenOffice productivity suite
>      License:       LGPL-2
>
>
> Questions:
> 1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin
Openoffice has to be compiled by your self and though it is the the more 
gentooious way. For me it rans faster, but takes a long time to compile.

Openoffice-bin, if you don't want or can wait for the compilation.
> 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB 
> Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?
Try emerge -p openoffice|genlop -pq

to query the http://gentoo.linuxhowtos.org/compiletimeestimator/


>
> :-(
>
> Bye
>
> emilio
>
>



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Wang, Baojun]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1794 bytes --]

在 2008-05-05一的 11:35 +0200，econti写道：
> Hi all
> I'd like to install OO on my Gentoo PC. I ran
> 
> emerge -s openoffice
> and here is the result
> 
> *  app-office/openoffice
>       Latest version available: 2.4.0
>       Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>       Size of files: 247,060 kB
>       Homepage:      http://go-oo.org
>       Description:   OpenOffice.org, a full office productivity suite.
>       License:       LGPL-2
> 
> *  app-office/openoffice-bin
>       Latest version available: 2.4.0
>       Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>       Size of files: 1,149,284 kB
>       Homepage:      http://www.openoffice.org/
>       Description:   OpenOffice productivity suite
>       License:       LGPL-2
> 
> 
> Questions:
> 1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin
openoffice-bin is a binary tarball thus we don't have to build from
source. but it dosn't have so many USE flag as `openoffice` so I think
it's less flexible, most important, it's only for 32bit (on x86), so if
you need an amd64 version of OO, you'd better to build your own.
> 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB 
> Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?
I think should be around 4 hrs, if it's a dual-core processor, that
should be faster.
> 
> :-(
> 
> Bye
> 
> emilio
> 
> 
-- 
Wang, Baojun                                                Lanzhou University
Distributed & Embedded System Lab                      http://dslab.lzu.edu.cn
School of Information Science and Engeneering          wangbj@dslab.lzu.edu.cn
Tianshui South Road 222. Lanzhou 730000                             .P.R.China
Tel: +86-931-8912025                                      Fax: +86-931-8912022


[-- Attachment #2: 这是信件的数字签名部分 --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

Am Montag, 5. Mai 2008 schrieb ext econti:

> Questions:
> 1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin

The latter is pre-compiled, eventually using USE flags that don't match your 
settings, so you may not get what you want.

> 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB
> Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?

Don't know. More important would be to answer: "How much disk space does it 
need?" You should have ~6G available in your $PORTAGE_TMPDIR.

HTH...

	Dirk
-- 
Dirk Heinrichs          | Tel:  +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager   | Fax:  +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland   | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68      | Web:  http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf      | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Philip Webb]

080505 econti wrote:
> emerge -s openoffice
> *  app-office/openoffice
>      Latest version available: 2.4.0
>      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>      Size of files: 247,060 kB
>      Homepage:      http://go-oo.org
>      Description:   OpenOffice.org, a full office productivity suite.
>      License:       LGPL-2
>
> *  app-office/openoffice-bin
>      Latest version available: 2.4.0
>      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>      Size of files: 1,149,284 kB
>      Homepage:      http://www.openoffice.org/
>      Description:   OpenOffice productivity suite
>      License:       LGPL-2
>
> 1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin

Like that between tailor-made & off-the-shelf clothing.

> 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin
> on a PC with 2 GB Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?

On my 2003 machine (AMD 2500+)  5 hours ;
on my 2007 machine (Intel Core-2 Duo 6700)  2 hours .

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[András Csányi]

2008/5/5 econti <contiemilio@alice.it>:
> Hi all
[snip]
>  Questions:
>  1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin
>  2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB Ram
> and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?

Hi!

On my 2.5 AMD Athlon machine with 1,5 GRAM the compiling is 6-8 hours
long time. I think on yours is 4-5 hours or faster.

András
-- 
- -
-- Csanyi Andras -- http://sayusi.hu -- Sayusi Ando
-- "Bízzál Istenben és tartsd szárazon a puskaport!".-- Cromwell

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Philip Webb]

080505 Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
>> 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin
>> on a PC with 2 GB Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?
> More important would be to answer: "How much disk space does it need?"
> You should have ~6G available in your $PORTAGE_TMPDIR.

Yes : on my 2007 machine the latest 2.4.0 needed  2,7 GB  disk space,
but earlier versions on my 2003 machine could take  <= 6 GB .

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, econti wrote:
> Hi all
> I'd like to install OO on my Gentoo PC. I ran
>
> emerge -s openoffice
> and here is the result
>
> *  app-office/openoffice
>       Latest version available: 2.4.0
>       Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>       Size of files: 247,060 kB
>       Homepage:      http://go-oo.org
>       Description:   OpenOffice.org, a full office productivity suite.
>       License:       LGPL-2
>
> *  app-office/openoffice-bin
>       Latest version available: 2.4.0
>       Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
>       Size of files: 1,149,284 kB
>       Homepage:      http://www.openoffice.org/
>       Description:   OpenOffice productivity suite
>       License:       LGPL-2
>
>
> Questions:
> 1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin

maybe oo has nicer looking fonts. It starts a little bit faster, but after 
that no difference in speed.

> 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB
> Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?

extremly long. So long that you have to start ooo several times a day for a 
year so that the saved startup time equalizes the time spent compiling it.

If you are even able to. Openoffice is a bitch to compile. Even the slightest 
change might break the compilation. It really, really sucks. IMHO openoffice 
is a nice example for everything that is wrong.

Go with openoffice-bin. 

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 12:21:12 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> > 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB
> > Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?  
> 
> extremly long. So long that you have to start ooo several times a day
> for a year so that the saved startup time equalizes the time spent
> compiling it.

The times aren't comparable. I can sleep while OOo is compiling, it only
files like I have time to sleep when I click on an attachment in an email
and wait for it to load.

> If you are even able to. Openoffice is a bitch to compile. Even the
> slightest change might break the compilation. It really, really sucks.
> IMHO openoffice is  a nice example for everything that is wrong.

No argument there :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Snacktrek, n.:
 The peculiar habit, when searching for a snack, of constantly
 returning to the refrigerator in hopes that something new will have
 materialized.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Wolf Canis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2062 bytes --]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> extremly long. So long that you have to start ooo several times a day for a 
> year so that the saved startup time equalizes the time spent compiling it.
>   
I have to disagree. On my laptop Dell Inspiron 6400, Dual Core Pentium
(T2130) 1.8 GHz,
2 GB RAM, 160 GB HD. The compile time is absolutely OK. Important is
that the feature
"ccache" in make.conf is enabled and MAKEOPTS has a reasonable value, I
have set it
to "-j2". I follow the rule MAKEOPTS=<number CPUS>. But in the case of
openoffice, the
ebuild overwrite this value  with "-j1". For the version 2.3.x I had set
the variable
WANT_MP but with version 2.4  it breaks the build. But how you can see
in the following,
that's only a minor problem.

wolf-di6400 0(0) 03:04 PM  ~ # qlop -gH openoffice
openoffice: Fri May  2 16:22:23 2008: 1 hour, 20 minutes, 38 seconds
openoffice: Sat May  3 04:06:11 2008: 1 hour, 19 minutes, 12 seconds
openoffice: 2 times

wolf-di6400 0(0) 03:04 PM  ~ # emerge -avt openoffice

These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-2.4.0  USE="binfilter cups dbus
firefox gnome gstreamer gtk java ldap mono odk opengl pam -debug -eds
-kde -seamonkey -webdav -xulrunner" LINGUAS="-af -ar -as_IN -be_BY -bg
-bn -br -bs -ca -cs -cy -da -de -dz -el -en -en_GB -en_US -en_ZA -eo -es
-et -fa -fi -fr -ga -gl -gu_IN -he -hi_IN -hr -hu -it -ja -km -ko -ku
-lt -lv -mk -ml_IN -mr_IN -nb -ne -nl -nn -nr -ns -or_IN -pa_IN -pl -pt
-pt_BR -ru -rw -sh -sk -sl -sr -ss -st -sv -sw_TZ -ta_IN -te_IN -tg -th
-ti_ER -tn -tr -ts -uk -ur_IN -ve -vi -xh -zh_CN -zh_TW -zu" 0 kB

Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 kB

> If you are even able to. Openoffice is a bitch to compile. Even the slightest 
> change might break the compilation. It really, really sucks. IMHO openoffice 
> is a nice example for everything that is wrong.
>   
I can't this confirm.
> Go with openoffice-bin. 
See above.

W. Canis



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Rudmer van Dijk]

On Monday 05 May 2008, Wang, Baojun wrote:
> 在 2008-05-05一的 11:35 +0200，econti写道：
>
> > Hi all
> > I'd like to install OO on my Gentoo PC. I ran
> >
> > emerge -s openoffice
> > and here is the result
> >
> > *  app-office/openoffice
> >       Latest version available: 2.4.0
> >       Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
> >       Size of files: 247,060 kB
> >       Homepage:      http://go-oo.org
> >       Description:   OpenOffice.org, a full office productivity suite.
> >       License:       LGPL-2
> >
> > *  app-office/openoffice-bin
> >       Latest version available: 2.4.0
> >       Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
> >       Size of files: 1,149,284 kB
> >       Homepage:      http://www.openoffice.org/
> >       Description:   OpenOffice productivity suite
> >       License:       LGPL-2
> >
> >
> > Questions:
> > 1 - the difference between openoffice and openoffice-bin
>
> openoffice-bin is a binary tarball thus we don't have to build from
> source. but it dosn't have so many USE flag as `openoffice` so I think
> it's less flexible, most important, it's only for 32bit (on x86), so if
> you need an amd64 version of OO, you'd better to build your own.
>
> > 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin on a PC with 2 GB
> > Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?
>
> I think should be around 4 
> hrs, if it's a dual-core processor, that 
> should be faster.
>
nope: Estimated update time: 7 hours, 31 minutes. 
(app-office/openoffice-2.4.0)

this is on a AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ with 3GiB of RAM


so you should be really sure that you want to compile it!!
otherwise go with the openoffice-bin package it saves you a lot of 
time/frustration

	Rudmer
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Which openoffice

[Francesco Talamona]

> > 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin
> > on a PC with 2 GB Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?
>
> On my 2003 machine (AMD 2500+)  5 hours ;
> on my 2007 machine (Intel Core-2 Duo 6700)  2 hours .

Those are the timings of openoffice, openoffice-bin doesn't get 
compiled, it is "deployed", on my 2 GB amd 64 3200+:


     Sat Apr 19 14:40:43 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0
       merge time: 2 minutes and 57 seconds.

Ciao
	Francesco


-- 
Linux Version 2.6.25-gentoo-r2, Compiled #1 PREEMPT Sun May 4 08:26:42 
CEST 2008
One 1GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processor, 2GB RAM, 2004.02 Bogomips Total
aemaeth
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which openoffice

[Alan McKinnon]

On Monday 05 May 2008, Francesco Talamona wrote:
> > > 2 - how long does it take to compile openoffice-bin
> > > on a PC with 2 GB Ram and a AMD Athlon-64 3200+ Processor?
> >
> > On my 2003 machine (AMD 2500+)  5 hours ;
> > on my 2007 machine (Intel Core-2 Duo 6700)  2 hours .
>
> Those are the timings of openoffice, openoffice-bin doesn't get
> compiled, it is "deployed", on my 2 GB amd 64 3200+:
>
>
>      Sat Apr 19 14:40:43 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0
>        merge time: 2 minutes and 57 seconds.

OOo has just got to be the most fscked-up ebuild I've ever seen.

My old 2600+ MD Barton machine often took 18 hours to build (!)

So now I use OOo-bin, just don't try doing other intensive work 
while "deploying" it. Here's what happens:

alan@nazgul ~ $ genlop -t openoffice-bin
 * app-office/openoffice-bin

     Fri Nov  9 09:27:59 2007 >>> app-office/openoffice-bin-2.3.0
       merge time: 50 seconds.

     Fri Jan  4 12:06:03 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-bin-2.3.1
       merge time: 35 minutes and 51 seconds.

     Wed Apr  2 20:59:25 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0
       merge time: 1 hour, 5 minutes and 12 seconds.

The emerge in April also had two other emerges going at the same time - 
a world update and a complete e17 rebuild. Nothing else showed a 6000% 
increase in deploy time though....

Weird, huh?

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Wolf Canis wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > extremly long. So long that you have to start ooo several times a day for
> > a year so that the saved startup time equalizes the time spent compiling
> > it.

> "ccache" in make.conf is enabled and MAKEOPTS has a reasonable value, I
> have set it
> to "-j2". I follow the rule MAKEOPTS=<number CPUS>. But in the case of
> openoffice, the
> ebuild overwrite this value  with "-j1". For the version 2.3.x I had set
> the variable
> WANT_MP but with version 2.4  it breaks the build. But how you can see
> in the following,
> that's only a minor problem.

or not. So everything bigger than -j1 breaks the built. Which makes dual core 
cpus useless to speed up compilation.

>
> wolf-di6400 0(0) 03:04 PM  ~ # qlop -gH openoffice
> openoffice: Fri May  2 16:22:23 2008: 1 hour, 20 minutes, 38 seconds
> openoffice: Sat May  3 04:06:11 2008: 1 hour, 19 minutes, 12 seconds
> openoffice: 2 times

emerge -p openoffice-bin|genlop -p
These are the pretended packages: (this may take a while; wait...)

[ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0


Estimated update time: 2 minutes.

> > If you are even able to. Openoffice is a bitch to compile. Even the
> > slightest change might break the compilation. It really, really sucks.
> > IMHO openoffice is a nice example for everything that is wrong.
>
> I can't this confirm.

go to b.g.o and see the countless reports. Or the forums. Or have a look at 
the ebuild for all the crap that is there just to get the POS ooo compiled.






-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which openoffice

[Uwe Thiem]

On Monday 05 May 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> OOo has just got to be the most fscked-up ebuild I've ever seen.

I think you are being unfair towards the gentoo developers. It isn't 
the ebuild but OOo's build system (and source). The gentoo devs just 
try to work around its extreme fragility.

Still, it builds just fine here. I let the build run overnight and 
have a fresh OpenOffice the next day.

Uwe

-- 
Ignorance killed the cat, sir, curiosity was framed!
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1145 bytes --]

On Monday 05 May 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Wolf Canis wrote:

> > wolf-di6400 0(0) 03:04 PM  ~ # qlop -gH openoffice
> > openoffice: Fri May  2 16:22:23 2008: 1 hour, 20 minutes, 38 seconds
> > openoffice: Sat May  3 04:06:11 2008: 1 hour, 19 minutes, 12 seconds
> > openoffice: 2 times
>
> emerge -p openoffice-bin|genlop -p
> These are the pretended packages: (this may take a while; wait...)
>
> [ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0
>
>
> Estimated update time: 2 minutes.

You people don't know what pain means!  :-))
----------------------------------
[ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0  

Estimated update time: 5 minutes.
----------------------------------
[ebuild  N    ] app-office/openoffice-2.4.0

Estimated update time: 23 hours, 12 minutes.
----------------------------------

The funny thing is that this PIII laptop is *significantly* faster than the 
PIII desktop that had its MoBo blow up on me.  The irony of course is that 
the compiled from source is most needed on those machines that take the 
longest to emerge.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 416 bytes --]

 * app-office/openoffice

     Mon Mar 10 18:35:42 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
       merge time: 3 hours, 11 minutes and 4 seconds.

     Mon Apr 21 11:18:22 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
       merge time: 1 hour, 15 minutes and 27 seconds.

     Sat Apr 26 11:55:21 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
       merge time: 3 hours, 1 minute and 37 seconds.



q6600 with 2GB RAM


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Wolf Canis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2612 bytes --]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Wolf Canis wrote:
>   
>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>     
>>> extremly long. So long that you have to start ooo several times a day for
>>> a year so that the saved startup time equalizes the time spent compiling
>>> it.
>>>       
>
>   
>> "ccache" in make.conf is enabled and MAKEOPTS has a reasonable value, I
>> have set it
>> to "-j2". I follow the rule MAKEOPTS=<number CPUS>. But in the case of
>> openoffice, the
>> ebuild overwrite this value  with "-j1". For the version 2.3.x I had set
>> the variable
>> WANT_MP but with version 2.4  it breaks the build. But how you can see
>> in the following,
>> that's only a minor problem.
>>     
>
> or not. So everything bigger than -j1 breaks the built. Which makes dual core 
> cpus useless to speed up compilation.
>   

Not really, because if you have set -pipe in CFLAGS than you can
easily, with top, check how the cpus are used. But that's it, of course.

How I mentioned earlier with version 2.3.x I had set WANT_MP=true
and MAKEOPTS=-j2 (and with my first builds -j4 and -j5 but that was pretty
much useless, because the processes are hinder them self but they don't
break
the build) and that works for me. The only problem which  occurred was this

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210065

>   
>> wolf-di6400 0(0) 03:04 PM  ~ # qlop -gH openoffice
>> openoffice: Fri May  2 16:22:23 2008: 1 hour, 20 minutes, 38 seconds
>> openoffice: Sat May  3 04:06:11 2008: 1 hour, 19 minutes, 12 seconds
>> openoffice: 2 times
>>     
>
> emerge -p openoffice-bin|genlop -p
> These are the pretended packages: (this may take a while; wait...)
>
> [ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0
>
>
> Estimated update time: 2 minutes.
>   

Yeh, of course is that faster but why we use Gentoo? Because
of the fast binary install? ;-)

>   
>>> If you are even able to. Openoffice is a bitch to compile. Even the
>>> slightest change might break the compilation. It really, really sucks.
>>> IMHO openoffice is a nice example for everything that is wrong.
>>>       
>> I can't this confirm.
>>     
>
> go to b.g.o and see the countless reports. Or the forums. Or have a look at 
> the ebuild for all the crap that is there just to get the POS ooo compiled.

I can only repeat that this doesn't apply to me and I'm pretty sure
that I'm not the only one who don't use the bin-pkg.

Although I conduct all emerges at the console _not_ in X. Perhaps
that's it. However, every user should do how he/she likes.

W. Canis



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Wolf Canis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 753 bytes --]

Mick wrote:
> You people don't know what pain means!  :-))
> ----------------------------------
> [ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0  
>
> Estimated update time: 5 minutes.
> ----------------------------------
> [ebuild  N    ] app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
>
> Estimated update time: 23 hours, 12 minutes.
> ----------------------------------
>
> The funny thing is that this PIII laptop is *significantly* faster than the 
> PIII desktop that had its MoBo blow up on me.  The irony of course is that 
> the compiled from source is most needed on those machines that take the 
> longest to emerge.
>   


Yeh, I know that. My first install was on a laptop Toshiba Tecra 8100.
But it _always_ works fine.

W. Canis



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Willie Wong]

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 09:30:52PM +0200, Justin wrote:
> * app-office/openoffice
> 
>     Mon Mar 10 18:35:42 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
>       merge time: 3 hours, 11 minutes and 4 seconds.
> 
>     Mon Apr 21 11:18:22 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
>       merge time: 1 hour, 15 minutes and 27 seconds.
> 
>     Sat Apr 26 11:55:21 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
>       merge time: 3 hours, 1 minute and 37 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> q6600 with 2GB RAM
> 

1 hour and 15 minutes? Now you are just showing off. 

Since we've come this far, I really want to know what is 
your virtual p*n*s length: 

echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15 +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'

my desktop only gets its 65.3cm because of its 514 day uptime. 
I won't even dream about compiling OO on it. 

Have fun,

W


-- 
Willie W. Wong                                      wwong@math.princeton.edu
408 Fine Hall,  Department of Mathematics,  Princeton University,  Princeton
A mathematician's reputation rests on the number of bad proofs he has given.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1321 bytes --]

Willie Wong schrieb:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 09:30:52PM +0200, Justin wrote:
>   
>> * app-office/openoffice
>>
>>     Mon Mar 10 18:35:42 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
>>       merge time: 3 hours, 11 minutes and 4 seconds.
>>
>>     Mon Apr 21 11:18:22 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
>>       merge time: 1 hour, 15 minutes and 27 seconds.
>>
>>     Sat Apr 26 11:55:21 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
>>       merge time: 3 hours, 1 minute and 37 seconds.
>>
>>
>>
>> q6600 with 2GB RAM
>>
>>     
>
> 1 hour and 15 minutes? Now you are just showing off. 
>   
It the truth, it was insanely fast. But as you can see the second time 
was much slower. I can't remember how that worked.
> Since we've come this far, I really want to know what is 
> your virtual p*n*s length: 
>
> echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15 +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'
>
> my desktop only gets its 65.3cm because of its 514 day uptime. 
>   
Your desktop has an uptime of 1 and half year?

What does this XXcm value mean?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Alan McKinnon]

On Monday 05 May 2008, Willie Wong wrote:
> Since we've come this far, I really want to know what is
> your virtual p*n*s length:
>
> echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat
> /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep
> '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v
> '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;}
> END {print s/1024/50"/15 +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'

nazgul screenlets-0.0.2 # echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) 
day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 
+";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x 
smbfs | grep -v '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= 
$2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15 +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'
67.1cm

Fascinating, most fascinating. I get 67.1cm! Longer than yours!

Now, this command of your. Wazzitdo?

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which openoffice

[Alan McKinnon]

On Monday 05 May 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > OOo has just got to be the most fscked-up ebuild I've ever seen.
>
> I think you are being unfair towards the gentoo developers. It isn't
> the ebuild but OOo's build system (and source). The gentoo devs just
> try to work around its extreme fragility.
>
> Still, it builds just fine here. I let the build run overnight and
> have a fresh OpenOffice the next day.

You sir, are completely correct.

s/fscked-up ebuild/fscked-up build system/g

There, now it's fixed.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Wolf Canis wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Wolf Canis wrote:
> >> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >>> extremly long. So long that you have to start ooo several times a day
> >>> for a year so that the saved startup time equalizes the time spent
> >>> compiling it.
> >>
> >> "ccache" in make.conf is enabled and MAKEOPTS has a reasonable value, I
> >> have set it
> >> to "-j2". I follow the rule MAKEOPTS=<number CPUS>. But in the case of
> >> openoffice, the
> >> ebuild overwrite this value  with "-j1". For the version 2.3.x I had set
> >> the variable
> >> WANT_MP but with version 2.4  it breaks the build. But how you can see
> >> in the following,
> >> that's only a minor problem.
> >
> > or not. So everything bigger than -j1 breaks the built. Which makes dual
> > core cpus useless to speed up compilation.
>
> Not really, because if you have set -pipe in CFLAGS than you can
> easily, with top, check how the cpus are used. But that's it, of course.
>
> How I mentioned earlier with version 2.3.x I had set WANT_MP=true
> and MAKEOPTS=-j2 (and with my first builds -j4 and -j5 but that was pretty
> much useless, because the processes are hinder them self but they don't
> break
> the build) and that works for me. The only problem which  occurred was this
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210065
>
> >> wolf-di6400 0(0) 03:04 PM  ~ # qlop -gH openoffice
> >> openoffice: Fri May  2 16:22:23 2008: 1 hour, 20 minutes, 38 seconds
> >> openoffice: Sat May  3 04:06:11 2008: 1 hour, 19 minutes, 12 seconds
> >> openoffice: 2 times
> >
> > emerge -p openoffice-bin|genlop -p
> > These are the pretended packages: (this may take a while; wait...)
> >
> > [ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0
> >
> >
> > Estimated update time: 2 minutes.
>
> Yeh, of course is that faster but why we use Gentoo? Because
> of the fast binary install? ;-)

with packages that are only needed once in a while (ooo, frickelfox) binaries 
might be the right thing to do.

I have compiled ooo in the past - on much, much slower machines. Ever compiled 
it on a 900mhz thunderbird? I did (and later faster cpus, of course). 
Inclusive seeing it fail after 8h because the wrong java version was 
installed. It took less time to emerge ALL of kde than ooo. And one day I 
compared the differences. ooo started maybe 3 seconds faster than ooo-bin. As 
soon as started, no difference at all.

That was not worth the trouble.

> Although I conduct all emerges at the console _not_ in X. Perhaps
> that's it. However, every user should do how he/she likes.

it does not matter where - ooo is huge - bloated. And whereever you emerge it, 
it is the package needing the most time.


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Willie Wong wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 09:30:52PM +0200, Justin wrote:
> > * app-office/openoffice
> >
> >     Mon Mar 10 18:35:42 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
> >       merge time: 3 hours, 11 minutes and 4 seconds.
> >
> >     Mon Apr 21 11:18:22 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
> >       merge time: 1 hour, 15 minutes and 27 seconds.
> >
> >     Sat Apr 26 11:55:21 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
> >       merge time: 3 hours, 1 minute and 37 seconds.
> >
> >
> >
> > q6600 with 2GB RAM
>
> 1 hour and 15 minutes? Now you are just showing off.
>
> Since we've come this far, I really want to know what is
> your virtual p*n*s length:
>
> echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat
> /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk
> '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v '1024-blocks' |
> awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15
> +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'
>
> my desktop only gets its 65.3cm because of its 514 day uptime.
> I won't even dream about compiling OO on it.

219.7cm and I booted 2h ago ;)

and still I don't compile openoffice. Why waste the time? I could emerge kde 
or gnome or a complete gentoo in the same time....

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Which openoffice

[Elric Scott]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Willie Wong wrote:
>> On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 09:30:52PM +0200, Justin wrote:
>> > * app-office/openoffice
>> >
>> >     Mon Mar 10 18:35:42 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.3.1-r1
>> >       merge time: 3 hours, 11 minutes and 4 seconds.
>> >
>> >     Mon Apr 21 11:18:22 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
>> >       merge time: 1 hour, 15 minutes and 27 seconds.
>> >
>> >     Sat Apr 26 11:55:21 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.0
>> >       merge time: 3 hours, 1 minute and 37 seconds.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > q6600 with 2GB RAM
>>
>> 1 hour and 15 minutes? Now you are just showing off.
>>
>> Since we've come this far, I really want to know what is
>> your virtual p*n*s length:
>>
>> echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat
>> /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep
>> '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v
>> '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END
>> {print s/1024/50"/15 +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'
>>
>> my desktop only gets its 65.3cm because of its 514 day uptime.
>> I won't even dream about compiling OO on it.
> 
> 219.7cm and I booted 2h ago ;)
> 
> and still I don't compile openoffice. Why waste the time? I could emerge
> kde or gnome or a complete gentoo in the same time....
> 

Hrmm...

167.6cm

And that's on a laptop...

-- 
  - Elric

"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask
about Exchange Server next.


-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[b.n.]

Willie Wong ha scritto:

> Since we've come this far, I really want to know what is 
> your virtual p*n*s length: 
> 
> echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15 +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'
> 
> my desktop only gets its 65.3cm because of its 514 day uptime. 
> I won't even dream about compiling OO on it. 

145.8 cm - booted a few hours ago due to inadvertentely clicking the 
reset button :(

But now please explain exactly what does that line calculates...

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Monday 5 May 2008, 22:12, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> nazgul screenlets-0.0.2 # echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up
> \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk
> '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df
> -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~
> "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15
> +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/' 67.1cm
>
> Fascinating, most fascinating. I get 67.1cm! Longer than yours!
>
> Now, this command of your. Wazzitdo?

It builds a bc expression, which is then fed to bc and the result is 
divided by 10 and has "cm" added to it.

uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'

This checks the uptime, and outputs "n/10+", where "n" is the uptime in 
days. In my case, the expression is "2/10+".


cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}'

This outputs "n/30 +", where "n" is the CPU speed in mhz. In my case 
(hyperthreding cpu) it outputs

3000.000/30 +
3000.000/30 +


free|grep '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'

This outputs "n/1024/3+", where "n" is the "used memory" from free's 
output. On my desktop, that is "1721716/1024/3+", but obvioulsy it 
changes almost every time you run the command. Not sure why the used 
memory is used instead of the total.

df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 
~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15
+70";}'

This outputs "n/15 +70", where "n" is the sum of the 1024-blocks as per 
df's output (excluding nfs and smbfs file systems), divided by 1024 and 
further divided by 50. The block count of /dev/scsi* or /dev/sd* devices 
is counted twice (not sure why though). On my system, the output 
is "5313.33/15 +70".

So, the final expression fed to bc is

2/10+ 3000.000/30 + 3000.000/30 + 1721716/1024/3+ 5313.33/15 +70

bc does the math, and sed divides the result by 10 and adds "cm" to the 
result. For me, that gives 118.4cm.

It would be interesting to know why Willie chose those values, those 
scaling factors, and what's the purpose of the constants.

Nice script though! Thanks!
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 395 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:11:07 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:

> cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}'

This uses three commands when one will do, there's no need for cat or grep

awk '/^cpu MHz/ {print $4"/30 +";}' /proc/cpuinfo

Similarly for the free command.

Longer isn't always better ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

God: What one human uses to persecute another.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Tuesday 6 May 2008, 10:39, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:11:07 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> > cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}'
>
> This uses three commands when one will do, there's no need for cat or
> grep
>
> awk '/^cpu MHz/ {print $4"/30 +";}' /proc/cpuinfo
>
> Similarly for the free command.

Ah sure. I just wanted to explain what the commands do, and didn't even 
try to make corrections.

> Longer isn't always better ;-)

But it produces better obfuscated code! :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Wolf Canis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3736 bytes --]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Wolf Canis wrote:
>   
>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>     
>>> On Montag, 5. Mai 2008, Wolf Canis wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> extremly long. So long that you have to start ooo several times a day
>>>>> for a year so that the saved startup time equalizes the time spent
>>>>> compiling it.
>>>>>           
>>>> "ccache" in make.conf is enabled and MAKEOPTS has a reasonable value, I
>>>> have set it
>>>> to "-j2". I follow the rule MAKEOPTS=<number CPUS>. But in the case of
>>>> openoffice, the
>>>> ebuild overwrite this value  with "-j1". For the version 2.3.x I had set
>>>> the variable
>>>> WANT_MP but with version 2.4  it breaks the build. But how you can see
>>>> in the following,
>>>> that's only a minor problem.
>>>>         
>>> or not. So everything bigger than -j1 breaks the built. Which makes dual
>>> core cpus useless to speed up compilation.
>>>       
>> Not really, because if you have set -pipe in CFLAGS than you can
>> easily, with top, check how the cpus are used. But that's it, of course.
>>
>> How I mentioned earlier with version 2.3.x I had set WANT_MP=true
>> and MAKEOPTS=-j2 (and with my first builds -j4 and -j5 but that was pretty
>> much useless, because the processes are hinder them self but they don't
>> break
>> the build) and that works for me. The only problem which  occurred was this
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210065
>>
>>     
>>>> wolf-di6400 0(0) 03:04 PM  ~ # qlop -gH openoffice
>>>> openoffice: Fri May  2 16:22:23 2008: 1 hour, 20 minutes, 38 seconds
>>>> openoffice: Sat May  3 04:06:11 2008: 1 hour, 19 minutes, 12 seconds
>>>> openoffice: 2 times
>>>>         
>>> emerge -p openoffice-bin|genlop -p
>>> These are the pretended packages: (this may take a while; wait...)
>>>
>>> [ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.4.0
>>>
>>>
>>> Estimated update time: 2 minutes.
>>>       
>> Yeh, of course is that faster but why we use Gentoo? Because
>> of the fast binary install? ;-)
>>     
>
> with packages that are only needed once in a while (ooo, frickelfox) binaries 
> might be the right thing to do.
>   
How I said, everyone's own decision.
> I have compiled ooo in the past - on much, much slower machines. Ever compiled 
> it on a 900mhz thunderbird? I did (and later faster cpus, of course). 
>   
I don't know a machine with the name thunderbird :-[ . But I started
with Gentoo
on a Toshiba Tecra 8100, that's a PIII Copermine 800MHz and 512 MB RAM.
In this
respect, I can say: Yes, I did. :-)     An emerge -e world lasted 11
hours, without OOO,
OOO alone needs 16 hours to build, _but_ that, for me, was the
fascinating thing -
The build runs faultless, not even this strange segfaults of
typesconfig. :-D
> Inclusive seeing it fail after 8h because the wrong java version was 
> installed. It took less time to emerge ALL of kde than ooo. And one day I 
> compared the differences. ooo started maybe 3 seconds faster than ooo-bin. As 
> soon as started, no difference at all.
>   
That are bad experiences, but those things don't happened to me.
Perhaps God has an eye on me. :-D 
For me isn't the start time of a program that important, but that all
fits perfect together.
> That was not worth the trouble.
>   
In your case, maybe.

>   
>> Although I conduct all emerges at the console _not_ in X. Perhaps
>> that's it. However, every user should do how he/she likes.
>>     
>
> it does not matter where - ooo is huge - bloated. And whereever you emerge it, 
> it is the package needing the most time.

That's absolutely right.

W. Canis



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Zdenek Travnicek]

>  I don't know a machine with the name thunderbird :-[ . But I started
>  with Gentoo
>  on a Toshiba Tecra 8100, that's a PIII Copermine 800MHz and 512 MB RAM.
>  In this
>  respect, I can say: Yes, I did. :-)     An emerge -e world lasted 11
>  hours, without OOO,
>  OOO alone needs 16 hours to build, _but_ that, for me, was the
>  fascinating thing -
>  The build runs faultless, not even this strange segfaults of
>  typesconfig. :-D
>

Cool!


One of my first compilations of OOo was on old Intel Celeron 400 for
my parents and it took 44hours, and whole system (w/ X, FF, Tb, OOo)
from stage1 exactly 5days (nearly 5x24 hours ;)
Sweet old times :D
It's loosing it's magic, when u can make it in 3 hours now ;-)
On my laptop (Dell Inspiron 6000) with pentium-m@2.13GHz, it still
takes me around 13hours though... I guess that encrypted root (with
/var/tmp) and swap does take it's price ;-)

But even though I need to compile it overnight, it's still worth it.
It's just the Right Gentoo Way (tm) :-D


>  >
>  >> Although I conduct all emerges at the console _not_ in X. Perhaps
>  >> that's it. However, every user should do how he/she likes.
>  >>
>  >
>  > it does not matter where - ooo is huge - bloated. And whereever you emerge it,
>  > it is the package needing the most time.
>
>  That's absolutely right.
>

 +1


P.S.  389.9cm :-))


Sincerely

Zdenek Travnicek
Institute of Intermedia
Faculty of Electrical Engineering,
Czech Technical University
Prague
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Which openoffice

[Wolf Canis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1897 bytes --]

Zdenek Travnicek wrote:
>>  I don't know a machine with the name thunderbird :-[ . But I started
>>  with Gentoo
>>  on a Toshiba Tecra 8100, that's a PIII Copermine 800MHz and 512 MB RAM.
>>  In this
>>  respect, I can say: Yes, I did. :-)     An emerge -e world lasted 11
>>  hours, without OOO,
>>  OOO alone needs 16 hours to build, _but_ that, for me, was the
>>  fascinating thing -
>>  The build runs faultless, not even this strange segfaults of
>>  typesconfig. :-D
>>
>>     
>
> Cool!
>   
Yeah, and all couple of hours, I very carefully looked at the progress. ;-)
>
> One of my first compilations of OOo was on old Intel Celeron 400 for
> my parents and it took 44hours, and whole system (w/ X, FF, Tb, OOo)
> from stage1 exactly 5days (nearly 5x24 hours ;)
>   
And all the time the fear that the machine breaks or the build. ;-)

> Sweet old times :D
> It's loosing it's magic, when u can make it in 3 hours now ;-)
>   
Yup, but today we have to do other things too. My
Gentoo box is my working machine too, therefore I'm
really happy about the shorter build times.

> On my laptop (Dell Inspiron 6000) with pentium-m@2.13GHz, it still
> takes me around 13hours though... I guess that encrypted root (with
> /var/tmp) and swap does take it's price ;-)
>
> But even though I need to compile it overnight, it's still worth it.
> It's just the Right Gentoo Way (tm) :-D
>   
That's what I'm talking about. 8-)

>
>   
>>  >
>>  >> Although I conduct all emerges at the console _not_ in X. Perhaps
>>  >> that's it. However, every user should do how he/she likes.
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  > it does not matter where - ooo is huge - bloated. And whereever you emerge it,
>>  > it is the package needing the most time.
>>
>>  That's absolutely right.
>>
>>     
>
>  +1
>
>
> P.S.  389.9cm :-))
>   
114.2cm

Have fun,
W. Canis



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Joe User]

Am Montag, 5. Mai 2008 22:00:37 schrieb Willie Wong:
>
> echo `uptime|grep days|sed 's/.*up \([0-9]*\) day.*/\1\/10+/'; cat
> /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}';free|grep
> '^Mem'|awk '{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs | grep -v
> '1024-blocks' | awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;}
> END {print s/1024/50"/15 +70";}'`|bc|sed 's/\(.$\)/.\1cm/'

fixed some bugs:

echo `uptime|sed 's/.*up\s*\([0-9]*\).*/\1\/10+/';grep '^cpu 
MHz' /proc/cpuinfo|awk '{print $4"/30+";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk '{print 
$3"/1024/3+"}';df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs|awk '{if ($1 ~ "/dev/(scsi|
sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print s/1024/50"/15+70";}'`|sed 's/,/./'|
bc|sed 's/\(..$\)/.\1cm/'

Regards,
Joe User
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Willie Wong]

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Penguin Lover Etaoin Shrdlu squawked:
> On Tuesday 6 May 2008, 10:39, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 May 2008 10:11:07 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> > > cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep '^cpu MHz'|awk '{print $4"/30 +";}'
> >
> > This uses three commands when one will do, there's no need for cat or
> > grep
> >
> > awk '/^cpu MHz/ {print $4"/30 +";}' /proc/cpuinfo
> >
> > Similarly for the free command.
> 
> Ah sure. I just wanted to explain what the commands do, and didn't even 
> try to make corrections.
> 
> > Longer isn't always better ;-)
> 
> But it produces better obfuscated code! :-)

Yay! Free bug-fixing! I love this list. 

Actually, I have that script sitting on my computer since some time in
2002. I didn't write it: it was written by a friend of mine and posted
to the college unix users group mailing list, with comments as to what
the proper scaling factors are all around. 

The scaling factors for the various components were chosen at that
time because it seemed to be good, realistic numbers to compare
performances of then-current desktop boxes. At least *we* felt it
works better than bogomips. 

As to the part of looking at used memory instead of total memory: I
don't remember it doing that, I have to go back to check. The double
counting of scsi disks is a bug, mostly because this script was
written before UDEV when it wasn't an issue. 

Lastly: this is just some good, not-too-clean locker-room-style fun.
Don't take it too seriously!

Regards, 

W
-- 
In this course we will of course make use of God's Units, namely 
       h-bar = c = 1
but occasionally I will indulge myself in my personal addition to
those units, in the form of 
       2 = -1 = pi = i = 1
please feel free to interject whenever you feel confused, and I will
make my best effort to clarify things. 
   ~Prof. Herman Verlinde explaining the things. 
    PHY 509, Intro to QFT, first lecture 09-12-03
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 515 days, 11:57
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Willie Wong]

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:11:41PM +0200, Penguin Lover Justin squawked:
> >your virtual p*n*s length: 

This should answer your question below. But just in case you are one
of those male geeks who never get to experience the joy that is the
American high school locker room: yes, the jocks do go around
comparing how well endowed they are. 

> >my desktop only gets its 65.3cm because of its 514 day uptime. 
> >  
> Your desktop has an uptime of 1 and half year?

Yes, and? It runs a kernel old enough that the most recent exploits
don't apply (and since I am the only local user, I don't worry too
much about local priviledge escalation). It is on an UPS, so even when
the power goes off in the neighborhood, it is still on (though I get
no internet when that happens). :)

There really isn't any need for me to reboot, so I don't. 

> What does this XXcm value mean?
> 
(loop back to top)

W
-- 
It is said that papers in string theory are published at a rate
greater than the speed of light. This, however, is not problematic
since no information is being transmitted.
    ~Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Hagen Michael Kleinert
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 515 days, 12:05
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Tuesday 6 May 2008, 13:37, Joe User wrote:

> fixed some bugs:
>
> echo `uptime|sed 's/.*up\s*\([0-9]*\).*/\1\/10+/';grep '^cpu
> MHz' /proc/cpuinfo|awk '{print $4"/30+";}';free|grep '^Mem'|awk
> '{print $3"/1024/3+"}';df -P -k -x nfs -x smbfs|awk '{if ($1 ~
> "/dev/(scsi| sd)"){ s+= $2} s+= $2;} END {print
> s/1024/50"/15+70";}'`|sed 's/,/./'| bc|sed 's/\(..$\)/.\1cm/'

As Neil sed, almost everything can be done with awk. Then, Willie said 
that the double count for devices is a bug. Thus:

echo `uptime|awk '{print $3"/10+"}'; awk '/^cpu MHz/{print 
$4"/30+"}' /proc/cpuinfo; free|awk '/^Mem/{print $3"/1024/3+"}'; 
df -Pk -x nfs -x smbfs|awk 'NR>1{s+=$2} END{print s/1024/50"/15+70"}'`|
bc|sed 's/.$/.&cm/'

which shortens my length to 105.0cm  >:-(
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 147 bytes --]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 18:19:22 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:

> As Neil sed

<GROAN!>


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If it isn't broken, I can fix it.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Tuesday 6 May 2008, 23:36, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 18:19:22 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> > As Neil sed
>
> <GROAN!>

LOL! That went unnoticed, sorry. It should have been "As Neil awk", of 
course :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 271 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 May 2008 08:53:55 +0200, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:

> LOL! That went unnoticed, sorry. It should have been "As Neil awk", of 
> course :-)

I never awk, although I am often accused of gawking :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Which openoffice

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Wednesday 7 May 2008, 09:38, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> I never awk, although I am often accused of gawking :)

Ah yes, we all use GNU awk. 

(ok, better stop this here :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which openoffice

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Uwe Thiem <uwix@iway.na> wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
> > OOo has just got to be the most fscked-up ebuild I've ever seen.
> 
> I think you are being unfair towards the gentoo developers. It isn't 
> the ebuild but OOo's build system (and source). The gentoo devs just 
> try to work around its extreme fragility.

ACK. Gentoo folks are not responsible for the OO-crap. Imagine,
these OO jerks even ship their own compiler+glibc. 

Instead Gentoo folks deserve great honor for getting it built
anyway.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list