[gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Jacques Montier]

Hi all,

I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
I get "instruction not permitted".
So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.

Any idea ?

Thank you,

Cheers,

--
Jacques

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Nilesh Govindrajan]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Jacques Montier <jmontier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
> does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
> I get "instruction not permitted".
> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
>
> Any idea ?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Jacques
>

It didn't work for me as well :|
I ended up compiling libreoffice-3.5 (took about 4h).

-- 
Nilesh Govindarajan
http://nileshgr.com

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 560 bytes --]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:

> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
> does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
> I get "instruction not permitted".
> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.

It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.

Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if you
can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Your lack of organisation does not represent an
emergency in my world.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Nilesh Govindrajan]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:
>
>> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
>> does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
>> I get "instruction not permitted".
>> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
>
> It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
>
> Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if you
> can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>
> Your lack of organisation does not represent an
> emergency in my world.

Well, I don't have an i7. I'm on a Dual Core 2 Ghz E2180. Yes really that old.

-- 
Nilesh Govindarajan
http://nileshgr.com

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 827 bytes --]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:31:45 +0530, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:

> >> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage,
> >> but it does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
> >> I get "instruction not permitted".
> >> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.  
> >
> > It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
> >
> > Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if
> > you can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)

> Well, I don't have an i7. I'm on a Dual Core 2 Ghz E2180. Yes really
> that old.

Sorry, I misread the ie7 as i7.

I'd still use the source build, as long as it could be completed either
overnight or while you are out as work.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

An expert is nothing more than an ordinary person away from home.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Jacques Montier]

Le 18/02/2012 13:54, Neil Bothwick a écrit :
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:
>
>> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
>> does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
>> I get "instruction not permitted".
>> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
> It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
>
> Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if you
> can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)
>
>

Before ie7, i had an 10 year-old PC, and it was 5 or 6 hours compiling
Openoffice...
Let's try now...;-)

Thanks,

Cheers,

--
Jacques

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Dale]

Jacques Montier wrote:
> Le 18/02/2012 13:54, Neil Bothwick a écrit :
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:
>>
>>> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
>>> does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
>>> I get "instruction not permitted".
>>> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
>> It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
>>
>> Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if you
>> can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)
>>
>>
> 
> Before ie7, i had an 10 year-old PC, and it was 5 or 6 hours compiling
> Openoffice...
> Let's try now...;-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Jacques
> 

Chew on this one.  This is for my old rig:

     Thu Dec 22 06:27:17 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1
       merge time: 18 hours, 46 minutes and 20 seconds.

I just love updating that old thing.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Jacques Montier]

Le 18/02/2012 14:51, Dale a écrit :
> Jacques Montier wrote:
>> Le 18/02/2012 13:54, Neil Bothwick a écrit :
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:
>>>
>>>> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
>>>> does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
>>>> I get "instruction not permitted".
>>>> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
>>> It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
>>>
>>> Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if you
>>> can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Before ie7, i had an 10 year-old PC, and it was 5 or 6 hours compiling
>> Openoffice...
>> Let's try now...;-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Jacques
>>
> Chew on this one.  This is for my old rig:
>
>      Thu Dec 22 06:27:17 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1
>        merge time: 18 hours, 46 minutes and 20 seconds.
>
> I just love updating that old thing.  lol
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>
Yes,

It was worth changing a use flag then  :-)

--
Jacques

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Dale]

Jacques Montier wrote:
> Le 18/02/2012 14:51, Dale a écrit :
>> Jacques Montier wrote:
>>> Le 18/02/2012 13:54, Neil Bothwick a écrit :
>>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage, but it
>>>>> does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
>>>>> I get "instruction not permitted".
>>>>> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
>>>> It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
>>>>
>>>> Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if you
>>>> can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Before ie7, i had an 10 year-old PC, and it was 5 or 6 hours compiling
>>> Openoffice...
>>> Let's try now...;-)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques
>>>
>> Chew on this one.  This is for my old rig:
>>
>>      Thu Dec 22 06:27:17 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.3.2-r1
>>        merge time: 18 hours, 46 minutes and 20 seconds.
>>
>> I just love updating that old thing.  lol
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>>
> Yes,
> 
> It was worth changing a use flag then  :-)
> 
> --
> Jacques
> 

Funny thing is, I updated that a week or so ago.  It took 3 tries to get
LOo to compile and finish.  Is it just me or do they always seem to fail
right at the end?  ROLF

Dale

:-)  :-)


-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output?  Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:54:14 +0000
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:
> 
> > I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage,
> > but it does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
> > I get "instruction not permitted".
> > So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
> 
> It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
> 
> Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if
> you can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)
> 
> 

Like this?

# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 42
model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2720QM CPU @ 2.20GHz

# genlop -t libreoffice
 * app-office/libreoffice

     Sun Jan 15 20:27:12 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.99.3
       merge time: 50 minutes and 42 seconds.

     Thu Jan 19 01:28:48 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.1
       merge time: 58 minutes and 38 seconds.

     Fri Feb 17 10:21:57 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
       merge time: 50 minutes and 8 seconds.
-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Jacques Montier]

Le 18/02/2012 15:42, Alan McKinnon a écrit :
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:54:14 +0000
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:39:32 +0100, Jacques Montier wrote:
>>
>>> I upgraded to libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 which is stable in portage,
>>> but it does'nt work on intel ie7 amd64.
>>> I get "instruction not permitted".
>>> So i masked 3.4.5.2 and downgraded to 3.3.4.
>> It seems like it was compiled using CFLAGS unsuitable for an i7.
>>
>> Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if
>> you can't brag about compiling LO in well under an hour? ;-)
>>
>>
> Like this?
>
> # cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor       : 0
> vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
> cpu family      : 6
> model           : 42
> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2720QM CPU @ 2.20GHz
>
> # genlop -t libreoffice
>  * app-office/libreoffice
>
>      Sun Jan 15 20:27:12 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.99.3
>        merge time: 50 minutes and 42 seconds.
>
>      Thu Jan 19 01:28:48 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.1
>        merge time: 58 minutes and 38 seconds.
>
>      Fri Feb 17 10:21:57 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
>        merge time: 50 minutes and 8 seconds.

Here it is...


processor    : 7
vendor_id    : GenuineIntel
cpu family    : 6
model        : 26
model name    : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         950  @ 3.07GHz
stepping    : 5
microcode    : 0xf
cpu MHz        : 3067.000
cache size    : 8192 KB

genlop -t app-office/libreoffice

     Sat Feb 18 16:10:44 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2
       merge time: 1 hour, 22 minutes and 35 seconds.


And it works fine !
Neil, it was a very good idea ! :-)

Thanks,

--
Jacques

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1027 bytes --]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:42:58 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > Why not use the source package? What's the point of having an i7 if

> Like this?
> 
> # cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor       : 0
> vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
> cpu family      : 6
> model           : 42
> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2720QM CPU @ 2.20GHz
> 
> # genlop -t libreoffice
>  * app-office/libreoffice
> 
>      Fri Feb 17 10:21:57 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
>        merge time: 50 minutes and 8 seconds.

OK, if you want to play genlop Top Trumps

[root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
 * app-office/libreoffice

     Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
       merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.

Incidentally, the full output from genlop -t shows a steady decrease in
build times as version numbers increase. It looks like optimisation of
the old OOo code is ongoing.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Q:  Why is top-posting evil?
A: backwards read don't humans because

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:57:17 +0000
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> OK, if you want to play genlop Top Trumps
> 
> [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
>  * app-office/libreoffice
> 
>      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
>        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
> 
> Incidentally, the full output from genlop -t shows a steady decrease
> in build times as version numbers increase. It looks like
> optimisation of the old OOo code is ongoing.

Actually I would ascribe it more to the libreoffice ebuild maintainers
getting rid of insane amounts of bundled crap in the OOo codebase and
instead building against the versions already in @world.

The ebuild maintainer was quite active on Gentoo's planet a few months
back, giving feedback to users and asking for testers. The amount of
progress being made in unbundling OOo's shit was quite impressive (to
put it mildly)

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Thanasis]

on 02/18/2012 06:57 PM Neil Bothwick wrote the following:

> [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
>  * app-office/libreoffice
> 
>      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
>        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.

Impressive. What's your hardware configuration, Neil?

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 560 bytes --]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:58:35 +0200, Thanasis wrote:

> > [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
> >  * app-office/libreoffice
> > 
> >      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> >        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.  
> 
> Impressive. What's your hardware configuration, Neil?

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16GB RAM.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays
of W. Shakespeare but all they got was the collected works of Francis
Bacon

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 Feb 2012 11:45:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:58:35 +0200, Thanasis wrote:
> > > [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
> > > 
> > >  * app-office/libreoffice
> > >  
> > >      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> > >      
> > >        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
> > 
> > Impressive. What's your hardware configuration, Neil?
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16GB RAM.

Hmm ... I've got a 1st generation i7 on my laptop and it is no-where near that 
fast.  :-(

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       Q 720  @ 1.60GHz  with 4G RAM.


     Sun Jan 29 21:47:46 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2
       merge time: 1 hour, 34 minutes and 43 seconds.

Is it just down to the CPU or are you running /var/tmp/portage on some turbo-
charged fs?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1010 bytes --]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:26:57 +0000, Mick wrote:

> > > >  * app-office/libreoffice
> > > >  
> > > >      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> > > >      
> > > >        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.  
> > > 
> > > Impressive. What's your hardware configuration, Neil?  
> > 
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16GB RAM.  
> 
> Hmm ... I've got a 1st generation i7 on my laptop and it is no-where
> near that fast.  :-(
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       Q 720  @ 1.60GHz  with 4G RAM.
> 
> 
>      Sun Jan 29 21:47:46 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2
>        merge time: 1 hour, 34 minutes and 43 seconds.
> 
> Is it just down to the CPU or are you running /var/tmp/portage on some
> turbo- charged fs?

Just plain old ext2. Laptops tend to have slower IO whereas I'm using
RAID1 on SATA3 hardware. Plus it is a newer CPU.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Windows '96 artificial intelligence: Unable to FORMAT A: Having a go at C:

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Meik Frischke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1302 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2012, 12:26:57 schrieb Mick:
> On Sunday 19 Feb 2012 11:45:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:58:35 +0200, Thanasis wrote:
> > > > [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
> > > > 
> > > >  * app-office/libreoffice
> > > >  
> > > >      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> > > >      
> > > >        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
> > > 
> > > Impressive. What's your hardware configuration, Neil?
> > 
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16GB RAM.
> 
> Hmm ... I've got a 1st generation i7 on my laptop and it is no-where near
> that fast.  :-(
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       Q 720  @ 1.60GHz  with 4G RAM.
> 
> 
>      Sun Jan 29 21:47:46 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2
>        merge time: 1 hour, 34 minutes and 43 seconds.
> 
> Is it just down to the CPU or are you running /var/tmp/portage on some
> turbo- charged fs?

IO does really slow down the compilation progress a lot. Having PORTAGE_TMPDIR 
on tmpfs saves about half an hour (compared to reiserfs on a 7200rpm disk) for 
me :
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         920  @ 2.67GHz
	Thu Feb 16 17:42:35 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
         merge time: 50 minutes and 39 seconds.

With 4GB Ram thats not an option for you though...

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1637 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 Feb 2012 12:57:51 Meik Frischke wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2012, 12:26:57 schrieb Mick:
> > On Sunday 19 Feb 2012 11:45:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:58:35 +0200, Thanasis wrote:
> > > > > [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
> > > > > 
> > > > >  * app-office/libreoffice
> > > > >  
> > > > >      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> > > > >      
> > > > >        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
> > > > 
> > > > Impressive. What's your hardware configuration, Neil?
> > > 
> > > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16GB RAM.
> > 
> > Hmm ... I've got a 1st generation i7 on my laptop and it is no-where near
> > that fast.  :-(
> > 
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       Q 720  @ 1.60GHz  with 4G RAM.
> > 
> >      Sun Jan 29 21:47:46 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2
> >      
> >        merge time: 1 hour, 34 minutes and 43 seconds.
> > 
> > Is it just down to the CPU or are you running /var/tmp/portage on some
> > turbo- charged fs?
> 
> IO does really slow down the compilation progress a lot. Having
> PORTAGE_TMPDIR on tmpfs saves about half an hour (compared to reiserfs on
> a 7200rpm disk) for me :
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         920  @ 2.67GHz
> 	Thu Feb 16 17:42:35 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
>          merge time: 50 minutes and 39 seconds.
> 
> With 4GB Ram thats not an option for you though...

My /var partition is on ext4.

My CPU is admittedly slower, but even so I wouldn't think that it would take 
more than _twice_ as long as Neil's.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Alecks Gates]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1844 bytes --]

I would be curious to see the results of compiling libreoffice with
PORTAGE_TMPDIR on btrfs with compress=lzo.
On Feb 19, 2012 9:37 AM, "Mick" <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 19 Feb 2012 12:57:51 Meik Frischke wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2012, 12:26:57 schrieb Mick:
> > > On Sunday 19 Feb 2012 11:45:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:58:35 +0200, Thanasis wrote:
> > > > > > [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  * app-office/libreoffice
> > > > > >
> > > > > >      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> > > > > >
> > > > > >        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Impressive. What's your hardware configuration, Neil?
> > > >
> > > > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz with 16GB RAM.
> > >
> > > Hmm ... I've got a 1st generation i7 on my laptop and it is no-where
> near
> > > that fast.  :-(
> > >
> > > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       Q 720  @ 1.60GHz  with 4G RAM.
> > >
> > >      Sun Jan 29 21:47:46 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2
> > >
> > >        merge time: 1 hour, 34 minutes and 43 seconds.
> > >
> > > Is it just down to the CPU or are you running /var/tmp/portage on some
> > > turbo- charged fs?
> >
> > IO does really slow down the compilation progress a lot. Having
> > PORTAGE_TMPDIR on tmpfs saves about half an hour (compared to reiserfs on
> > a 7200rpm disk) for me :
> > Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         920  @ 2.67GHz
> >       Thu Feb 16 17:42:35 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> >          merge time: 50 minutes and 39 seconds.
> >
> > With 4GB Ram thats not an option for you though...
>
> My /var partition is on ext4.
>
> My CPU is admittedly slower, but even so I wouldn't think that it would
> take
> more than _twice_ as long as Neil's.
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2521 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Hartmut Figge]

Thanasis:
>on 02/18/2012 06:57 PM Neil Bothwick wrote the following:

>> [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
>>  * app-office/libreoffice
>> 
>>      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
>>        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
>
>Impressive.

Yes. Perhaps i should consider using the source myself, because of

hafi@i5_64 ~ $ loffice
/usr/bin/loffice: line 2: 12258 Illegal instruction
/usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/soffice "$@"

which i just got with an i5. Should i? Should i wait for a fixed
libreoffice-bin? Hm.

Hartmut
-- 
Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/
Von Usern fuer User  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:50:47 +0100
Hartmut Figge <h.figge@gmx.de> wrote:

> Thanasis:
> >on 02/18/2012 06:57 PM Neil Bothwick wrote the following:
> 
> >> [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
> >>  * app-office/libreoffice
> >> 
> >>      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
> >>        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
> >
> >Impressive.
> 
> Yes. Perhaps i should consider using the source myself, because of
> 
> hafi@i5_64 ~ $ loffice
> /usr/bin/loffice: line 2: 12258 Illegal instruction
> /usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/soffice "$@"
> 
> which i just got with an i5. Should i? Should i wait for a fixed
> libreoffice-bin? Hm.

The case for compiling libreoffice is getting better all the time. Even
on older slower machines, build time is gradually coming down as the
ebuild maintainers strip out all the bundled libs that Sun added and
use system libs instead.

The days of >12 hour compiles for OOo are long gone (thankfully)


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Hartmut Figge]

Hartmut Figge:

>Perhaps i should consider using the source myself, because of
>
>hafi@i5_64 ~ $ loffice
>/usr/bin/loffice: line 2: 12258 Illegal instruction
>/usr/lib64/libreoffice/program/soffice "$@"
>
>which i just got with an i5. Should i?

That would give me these new packages

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N     ] virtual/fortran-0  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] dev-libs/libevent-2.0.16  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sys-process/time-1.7-r1  101 kB
[ebuild  N     ] app-admin/eselect-boost-0.3  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] dev-util/boost-build-1.46.1  41,017 kB
[ebuild  N     ] virtual/perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib-2.024  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] x11-themes/gnome-icon-theme-3.2.1.2  13,682 kB
[ebuild  N     ] dev-libs/boost-1.46.1-r1  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] dev-perl/Archive-Zip-1.300.0  193 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sci-libs/hdf5-1.8.4-r1  7,013 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sci-libs/fftw-3.2.2  3,414 kB
[ebuild  N     ] virtual/freedesktop-icon-theme-0  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] media-libs/vigra-1.7.1-r1  27,814 kB
[ebuild  N     ] net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.2.20  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] dev-util/mdds-0.5.3-r1  90 kB
[ebuild  N     ] app-office/libreoffice-3.4.5.2  240,214 kB

Total: 16 packages (16 new),

>Should i wait for a fixed libreoffice-bin? Hm.

libreoffice-bin doesn't require the above packages. Perhaps it failes
therefore? *g*

Hartmut
-- 
Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/
Von Usern fuer User  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Hartmut Figge]

Hartmut Figge:

>libreoffice-bin doesn't require the above packages. Perhaps it failes
>therefore? *g*

No. I had emerged them with oneshot to test that and to avoid, that
emerging them would count to the time required to emerge libreoffice.

Here are the results for my machine.
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU         760  @ 2.80GHz with 16GB RAM.

i5_64 hafi # time emerge libreoffice

real    72m45.187s
user    178m12.372s
sys     16m49.719s

In case someone is interested what happened during compiling:
http://www.triffids.de/pub/screenshot/lo120219.png (9 KB)

Hartmut
-- 
Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/
Von Usern fuer User  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] libreoffice-bin-3.4.5.2 broken ?

[Stefan G. Weichinger]

Am 18.02.2012 17:57, schrieb Neil Bothwick:

> [root@hactar ~ 0]% genlop -t libreoffice
>  * app-office/libreoffice
> 
>      Wed Feb 15 10:23:58 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
>        merge time: 40 minutes and 52 seconds.
> 
> Incidentally, the full output from genlop -t shows a steady decrease in
> build times as version numbers increase. It looks like optimisation of
> the old OOo code is ongoing.


for reference:

vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
cpu family	: 6
model		: 42
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz

# genlop -t libreoffice
 * app-office/libreoffice

     Mon Feb 20 12:20:57 2012 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.5.0.3
       merge time: 44 minutes and 54 seconds.

It was my first build of libreoffice, I used the binary version before.
8 gigs of RAM dedicated to PORTAGE_TMPDIR, mounted as tmpfs.

Stefan