[gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

I noticed this today:

The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
#required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
# /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
# Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> (27 Jul 2011)
# Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
# app-office/openoffice -> app-office/libreoffice
# app-office/openoffice-bin -> app-office/libreoffice-bin
# app-text/wpd2sxw -> app-text/wpd2odt
 >=app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1


Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?

Dale

:-) :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed this today:
>
> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
> # Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> (27 Jul 2011)
> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
> # app-office/openoffice -> app-office/libreoffice
> # app-office/openoffice-bin -> app-office/libreoffice-bin
> # app-text/wpd2sxw -> app-text/wpd2odt
>>=app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>
>
> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?

Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.

Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice (those
patches included in mainline), and using the two I can honestly say
there's really no difference as far as I can tell, aside from the
splash screen. Somebody posted about some Sun templates a while
back... maybe something proprietary like that is changed, but
OpenTemplate.org is meant to replace those anyway.

I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> I noticed this today:
>>
>> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
>> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
>> # Tomáš Chvátal<scarabeus@gentoo.org>  (27 Jul 2011)
>> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
>> # app-office/openoffice ->  app-office/libreoffice
>> # app-office/openoffice-bin ->  app-office/libreoffice-bin
>> # app-text/wpd2sxw ->  app-text/wpd2odt
>>      
>>> =app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>>>        
>>
>> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?
>>      
> Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
>
> Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
> anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice (those
> patches included in mainline), and using the two I can honestly say
> there's really no difference as far as I can tell, aside from the
> splash screen. Somebody posted about some Sun templates a while
> back... maybe something proprietary like that is changed, but
> OpenTemplate.org is meant to replace those anyway.
>
> I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
>
>    

OK.  I just wanted to make sure I was reading that right.  I guess 
Openoffice is a thing of the past now.

Question, is libreoffice available on winders too?  I need to put that 
on my bro's rig to if it is.  My bro still uses winders.  I been waiting 
on him to get up some cash to build a new rig with Gentoo on it.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[skiarxon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 58 bytes --]

Yeap there is a version for windows and it works fine. :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 58 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I noticed this today:
>>>
>>> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
>>> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>>> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
>>> # Tomáš Chvátal<scarabeus@gentoo.org>  (27 Jul 2011)
>>> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
>>> # app-office/openoffice ->  app-office/libreoffice
>>> # app-office/openoffice-bin ->  app-office/libreoffice-bin
>>> # app-text/wpd2sxw ->  app-text/wpd2odt
>>>
>>>>
>>>> =app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?
>>>
>>
>> Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
>>
>> Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
>> anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice (those
>> patches included in mainline), and using the two I can honestly say
>> there's really no difference as far as I can tell, aside from the
>> splash screen. Somebody posted about some Sun templates a while
>> back... maybe something proprietary like that is changed, but
>> OpenTemplate.org is meant to replace those anyway.
>>
>> I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
>>
>>
>
> OK.  I just wanted to make sure I was reading that right.  I guess
> Openoffice is a thing of the past now.
>
> Question, is libreoffice available on winders too?  I need to put that on my
> bro's rig to if it is.  My bro still uses winders.  I been waiting on him to
> get up some cash to build a new rig with Gentoo on it.  ;-)

Yep, I use it on my Windows 7 machine at work, everything is fine.
Also available for Macintosh users (or Mac as they seem to call it
these days).

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2169 bytes --]

On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 15:56:57 Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Paul Hartman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>> I noticed this today:
> >>> 
> >>> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
> >>> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
> >>> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
> >>> # Tomáš Chvátal<scarabeus@gentoo.org>  (27 Jul 2011)
> >>> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
> >>> # app-office/openoffice ->  app-office/libreoffice
> >>> # app-office/openoffice-bin ->  app-office/libreoffice-bin
> >>> # app-text/wpd2sxw ->  app-text/wpd2odt
> >>> 
> >>>> =app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
> >>> 
> >>> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?
> >> 
> >> Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
> >> 
> >> Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
> >> anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice (those
> >> patches included in mainline), and using the two I can honestly say
> >> there's really no difference as far as I can tell, aside from the
> >> splash screen. Somebody posted about some Sun templates a while
> >> back... maybe something proprietary like that is changed, but
> >> OpenTemplate.org is meant to replace those anyway.
> >> 
> >> I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
> > 
> > OK.  I just wanted to make sure I was reading that right.  I guess
> > Openoffice is a thing of the past now.
> > 
> > Question, is libreoffice available on winders too?  I need to put that on
> > my bro's rig to if it is.  My bro still uses winders.  I been waiting on
> > him to get up some cash to build a new rig with Gentoo on it.  ;-)
> 
> Yep, I use it on my Windows 7 machine at work, everything is fine.
> Also available for Macintosh users (or Mac as they seem to call it
> these days).

All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to emerge and 
on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Kfir Lavi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2428 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 15:56:57 Paul Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Paul Hartman wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >>> I noticed this today:
> > >>>
> > >>> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
> > >>> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
> > >>> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
> > >>> # Tomáš Chvátal<scarabeus@gentoo.org>  (27 Jul 2011)
> > >>> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
> > >>> # app-office/openoffice ->  app-office/libreoffice
> > >>> # app-office/openoffice-bin ->  app-office/libreoffice-bin
> > >>> # app-text/wpd2sxw ->  app-text/wpd2odt
> > >>>
> > >>>> =app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
> > >>>
> > >>> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?
> > >>
> > >> Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
> > >>
> > >> Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
> > >> anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice (those
> > >> patches included in mainline), and using the two I can honestly say
> > >> there's really no difference as far as I can tell, aside from the
> > >> splash screen. Somebody posted about some Sun templates a while
> > >> back... maybe something proprietary like that is changed, but
> > >> OpenTemplate.org is meant to replace those anyway.
> > >>
> > >> I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
> > >
> > > OK.  I just wanted to make sure I was reading that right.  I guess
> > > Openoffice is a thing of the past now.
> > >
> > > Question, is libreoffice available on winders too?  I need to put that
> on
> > > my bro's rig to if it is.  My bro still uses winders.  I been waiting
> on
> > > him to get up some cash to build a new rig with Gentoo on it.  ;-)
> >
> > Yep, I use it on my Windows 7 machine at work, everything is fine.
> > Also available for Macintosh users (or Mac as they seem to call it
> > these days).
>
> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to emerge
> and
> on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>
Yes,
but give it a credit. This big monster of code, compiles without a hitch.

KFir

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3413 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to emerge and
> on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.

Is it much worse than OpenOffice? Build times are nearly identical on
my system but I haven't paid attention to temp space needed during the
emerge process.

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 16:45:54 Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to
> > emerge and on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.
> 
> Is it much worse than OpenOffice? Build times are nearly identical on
> my system but I haven't paid attention to temp space needed during the
> emerge process.

By about +3G may be more!
-- 
Regards,
Mick

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2011-07-28 12:00 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 16:45:54 Paul Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to
>>> emerge and on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.

>> Is it much worse than OpenOffice? Build times are nearly identical on
>> my system but I haven't paid attention to temp space needed during the
>> emerge process.

> By about +3G may be more!

I think this is not so with the new 3.4.x versions...

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2011-07-28 12:00 PM, Mick<michaelkintzios@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 16:45:54 Paul Hartman wrote:
>>      
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Mick<michaelkintzios@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>        
>>>> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to
>>>> emerge and on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.
>>>>          
>    
>>> Is it much worse than OpenOffice? Build times are nearly identical on
>>> my system but I haven't paid attention to temp space needed during the
>>> emerge process.
>>>        
>    
>> By about +3G may be more!
>>      
> I think this is not so with the new 3.4.x versions...
>
>
>    

This is so far.

root@fireball / # du -shc /var/tmp/portage/app-office/
2.6G    /var/tmp/portage/app-office/
2.6G    total
root@fireball /

It's not done yet either.  My /var is at 94% so I am moving some 
http-rep* stuff out of the way.  One of these days, I'm just going to 
mount it on tmpfs and let it rip.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-07-28, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to
> emerge

Is it any worse that OOo was?  

Both took hours, but beyond that, I didn't pay much attention.

> and on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.

A few days ago, it took me three tries on one of my machines to get
libreoffice to build.  I think it ran out of disk space the first time,
though the error messages were rather misleading.

The second time I deleted some stuff from the distfiles dir about half
way through the build, and it turns out they were still needed later
in the build).

The third time, it worked. :)

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! FUN is never having to
                                  at               say you're SUSHI!!
                              gmail.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-07-28, Mick<michaelkintzios@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to
>> emerge
>>      
> Is it any worse that OOo was?
>
> Both took hours, but beyond that, I didn't pay much attention.
>
>    

My build took about 3.3Gbs of drive space.  I ran du just about 5 
minutes before it finished so that is pretty close.  I would say that 
4Gbs should be enough at least on a setup like mine.  You don't want to 
push your luck to far.  lol

>> and on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.
>>      
> A few days ago, it took me three tries on one of my machines to get
> libreoffice to build.  I think it ran out of disk space the first time,
> though the error messages were rather misleading.
>
> The second time I deleted some stuff from the distfiles dir about half
> way through the build, and it turns out they were still needed later
> in the build).
>
> The third time, it worked. :)
>
>    

On my machine, it took this:

root@fireball / # genlop -t libreoffice
  * app-office/libreoffice

      Thu Jul 28 12:33:11 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.1
        merge time: 1 hour, 9 minutes and 33 seconds.

root@fireball / #

I did stop it with a ctrl Z for about 5 minutes.  I was deleting stuff 
to give it some more room.  This is OOo:

      Tue Jul  5 05:15:01 2011 >>> app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
        merge time: 50 minutes and 27 seconds.


That's about a average.  Some were binary installs.  I can't recall why 
I did that now but it was since it only took a minute or so.

That's the report from this rig.  AMD 4 cores running at 3.2Ghz with 
16Gbs of ram.  No tmpfs this time.  That wouldn't be fair since I had to 
stop it for a few minutes.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-07-28, Mick<michaelkintzios@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to
>>> emerge
>>>
>>
>> Is it any worse that OOo was?
>>
>> Both took hours, but beyond that, I didn't pay much attention.
>>
>>
>
> My build took about 3.3Gbs of drive space.  I ran du just about 5 minutes
> before it finished so that is pretty close.  I would say that 4Gbs should be
> enough at least on a setup like mine.  You don't want to push your luck to
> far.  lol
>
>>> and on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.
>>>
>>
>> A few days ago, it took me three tries on one of my machines to get
>> libreoffice to build.  I think it ran out of disk space the first time,
>> though the error messages were rather misleading.
>>
>> The second time I deleted some stuff from the distfiles dir about half
>> way through the build, and it turns out they were still needed later
>> in the build).
>>
>> The third time, it worked. :)
>>
>>
>
> On my machine, it took this:
>
> root@fireball / # genlop -t libreoffice
>  * app-office/libreoffice
>
>     Thu Jul 28 12:33:11 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.1
>       merge time: 1 hour, 9 minutes and 33 seconds.
>
> root@fireball / #
>
> I did stop it with a ctrl Z for about 5 minutes.  I was deleting stuff to
> give it some more room.  This is OOo:
>
>     Tue Jul  5 05:15:01 2011 >>> app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>       merge time: 50 minutes and 27 seconds.
>
>
> That's about a average.  Some were binary installs.  I can't recall why I
> did that now but it was since it only took a minute or so.
>
> That's the report from this rig.  AMD 4 cores running at 3.2Ghz with 16Gbs
> of ram.  No tmpfs this time.  That wouldn't be fair since I had to stop it
> for a few minutes.
>
> Dale

Here is mine:

     Wed May 25 10:07:18 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.2
       merge time: 34 minutes and 10 seconds.

On my Intel Core i7 920 with 12GB of RAM using tmpfs. :)

Do those merge times include download time? I wonder...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Paul Hartman wrote:
>
> Here is mine:
>
>       Wed May 25 10:07:18 2011>>>  app-office/libreoffice-3.3.2
>         merge time: 34 minutes and 10 seconds.
>
> On my Intel Core i7 920 with 12GB of RAM using tmpfs. :)
>
> Do those merge times include download time? I wonder...
>
>
>    

I have wondered that too.  The process is sort of started but it's not 
actually compiling either.  I wonder how we could know for sure?  I have 
mine set to parallel fetch.  That saves time.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 28 July 2011 21:48:15 Dale wrote:

> I have wondered that too.  The process is sort of started but it's not
> actually compiling either.  I wonder how we could know for sure?

Easy. "emerge --fetchonly <blah>" first, then start the real work.

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Alex Schuster]

Peter Humphrey writes:

> On Thursday 28 July 2011 21:48:15 Dale wrote:
> 
>> I have wondered that too.  The process is sort of started but it's not
>> actually compiling either.  I wonder how we could know for sure?
> 
> Easy. "emerge --fetchonly <blah>" first, then start the real work.

I have acron job running which does an eix-sync, followed by emerge
-DuNf @world. And I also call a little script to check for GLSAs (Gentoo
Linux Security Advisories):

#!/bin/bash
glsas=$( glsa-check -n -t all |
         grep -v "^This system is affected by the following GLSAs:$" )
glsa-check -n -l $glsas 2> /dev/null

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Thursday 28 July 2011 21:48:15 Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> I have wondered that too.  The process is sort of started but it's not
>> actually compiling either.  I wonder how we could know for sure?
>>      
> Easy. "emerge --fetchonly<blah>" first, then start the real work.
>
>    

But if you emerge something and it has to be fetched first, is that 
counted in the time genlop shows or not?  That is the question.  I don't 
think it is counted but I'm not sure.  I set mine to fetch in the 
background so most of the time the fetch is done after a couple packages 
gets compiled.

Back when I was on dial-up, then I would fetch first.  I did that 
because my dial-up was so slow.  It would take days to download OOo or a 
major KDE upgrade.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday 28 July 2011 21:48:15 Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I have wondered that too.  The process is sort of started but it's not
>>> actually compiling either.  I wonder how we could know for sure?
>>>
>>
>> Easy. "emerge --fetchonly<blah>" first, then start the real work.
>>
>>
>
> But if you emerge something and it has to be fetched first, is that counted
> in the time genlop shows or not?  That is the question.  I don't think it is
> counted but I'm not sure.  I set mine to fetch in the background so most of
> the time the fetch is done after a couple packages gets compiled.
>
> Back when I was on dial-up, then I would fetch first.  I did that because my
> dial-up was so slow.  It would take days to download OOo or a major KDE
> upgrade.

I use parallel fetch, so it downloads int he background while it's
emerging the first package, but if there's only one package being
emerged it has no choice but to wait.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Alex Schuster]

Dale writes:

> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> On Thursday 28 July 2011 21:48:15 Dale wrote:
>>    
>>> I have wondered that too.  The process is sort of started but it's not
>>> actually compiling either.  I wonder how we could know for sure?
>>>      
>> Easy. "emerge --fetchonly<blah>" first, then start the real work.
> 
> But if you emerge something and it has to be fetched first, is that 
> counted in the time genlop shows or not?  That is the question.  I don't 
> think it is counted but I'm not sure.

That's what I thought, too, but then I simply tried to be sure. Download
time _is_ counted.


> I set mine to fetch in the 
> background so most of the time the fetch is done after a couple packages 
> gets compiled.

What about parallel emerges? I guess genlop will not take this into account.

> Back when I was on dial-up, then I would fetch first.  I did that 
> because my dial-up was so slow.  It would take days to download OOo or a 
> major KDE upgrade.

We all remember, Dale. We all remember.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Alex Schuster wrote:
> Dale writes:
>
>    
>> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>      
>>> On Thursday 28 July 2011 21:48:15 Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> I have wondered that too.  The process is sort of started but it's not
>>>> actually compiling either.  I wonder how we could know for sure?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Easy. "emerge --fetchonly<blah>" first, then start the real work.
>>>        
>> But if you emerge something and it has to be fetched first, is that
>> counted in the time genlop shows or not?  That is the question.  I don't
>> think it is counted but I'm not sure.
>>      
> That's what I thought, too, but then I simply tried to be sure. Download
> time _is_ counted.
>
>
>    

Now we know.  If I was on dial-up again, I could sure test that theory.  
3KBs/sec would certainly make a difference.  :-(  Pardon me if I refuse 
to go back tho.  I like youtube to much.


>> I set mine to fetch in the
>> background so most of the time the fetch is done after a couple packages
>> gets compiled.
>>      
> What about parallel emerges? I guess genlop will not take this into account.
>    

I would think not.  As long as the tarball is downloaded before emerge 
gets to it to compile.  I doubt it would even know how long it took to 
download either.


>    
>> Back when I was on dial-up, then I would fetch first.  I did that
>> because my dial-up was so slow.  It would take days to download OOo or a
>> major KDE upgrade.
>>      
> We all remember, Dale. We all remember.
>
> 	Wonko
>
>    

Yea, me to.  My puny DSL is a lot faster than dial-up.  It's cheaper 
too.  That part is weird.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Bill Kenworthy]

On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 11:54 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2011-07-28 12:00 PM, Mick<michaelkintzios@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >    
> >> On Thursday 28 Jul 2011 16:45:54 Paul Hartman wrote:
> >>      
> >>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Mick<michaelkintzios@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>        
> >>>> All sounds good, except that libreoffice requires acres of space to
> >>>> emerge and on at least two machines I'll have to move to binary.
> >>>>          
> >    
> >>> Is it much worse than OpenOffice? Build times are nearly identical on
> >>> my system but I haven't paid attention to temp space needed during the
> >>> emerge process.
> >>>        
> >    
> >> By about +3G may be more!
> >>      
> > I think this is not so with the new 3.4.x versions...
> >
> >
> >    
> 
> This is so far.
> 
> root@fireball / # du -shc /var/tmp/portage/app-office/
> 2.6G    /var/tmp/portage/app-office/
> 2.6G    total
> root@fireball /
> 
> It's not done yet either.  My /var is at 94% so I am moving some 
> http-rep* stuff out of the way.  One of these days, I'm just going to 
> mount it on tmpfs and let it rip.  lol
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

For systems without enough space I just map some more with nfs (before
you start obviously) - yes it is a lot slower, and you need a reliable
network with nfs over tcp for best reliability but it works fine. 

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[YoYo Siska]

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Paul Hartman wrote:
> > On my machine, it took this:
> >
> > root@fireball / # genlop -t libreoffice
> >  * app-office/libreoffice
> >
> >     Thu Jul 28 12:33:11 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.1
> >       merge time: 1 hour, 9 minutes and 33 seconds.
> >
> > root@fireball / #
> >
> > I did stop it with a ctrl Z for about 5 minutes.  I was deleting stuff to
> > give it some more room.  This is OOo:
> >
> >     Tue Jul  5 05:15:01 2011 >>> app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
> >       merge time: 50 minutes and 27 seconds.
> >
> >
> > That's about a average.  Some were binary installs.  I can't recall why I
> > did that now but it was since it only took a minute or so.
> >
> > That's the report from this rig.  AMD 4 cores running at 3.2Ghz with 16Gbs
> > of ram.  No tmpfs this time.  That wouldn't be fair since I had to stop it
> > for a few minutes.
> >
> > Dale
> 
> Here is mine:
> 
>      Wed May 25 10:07:18 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.2
>        merge time: 34 minutes and 10 seconds.
> 
> On my Intel Core i7 920 with 12GB of RAM using tmpfs. :)
> 
> Do those merge times include download time? I wonder...
> 


BTW, I was emerging libreoofice yesterday, and it took ~3.5 hours,
although OOo usually took ~1 hour. It seemed as if it wasn't doing
anything paralell, so I blamed my MAKEOPTS="-j -l4" (to which I changed
some time ago, but all the OOo compiles were before that). I just tried
today again with MAKEOPTS=-j4 and it took only ~1 hour ;).
Guess dmake doesn't know the --load-average stuff ;)

can't give a nice genlop -t output, as the first time i was building it
first with FEATURES=buildpkgonly and then installing with --usepkg (just
after i removed OOo), as portage didn't wan't to resolve the blocker,
and i didn't want to be without it while it compiled ... ;)


# genlop -t libreoffice
 * app-office/libreoffice

     Fri Jul 29 08:57:10 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.3
       merge time: 1 minute and 59 seconds.

     Fri Jul 29 13:55:42 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.3
       merge time: 1 hour, 7 minutes and 25 seconds.

the first one is for the --usepkg binary merge ;), but I checked the
timestamps in emerge.log and the compile  was a small bit over 3.5h


yoyo

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Alex Schuster]

Dale writes:

> Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Dale writes:

> >> But if you emerge something and it has to be fetched first, is that
> >> counted in the time genlop shows or not?  That is the question.  I
> >> don't think it is counted but I'm not sure.
> > 
> > That's what I thought, too, but then I simply tried to be sure.
> > Download time _is_ counted.
> 
> Now we know.  If I was on dial-up again, I could sure test that theory.
> 3KBs/sec would certainly make a difference.  :-(  Pardon me if I refuse
> to go back tho.  I like youtube to much.

It's easier than that, I simply emerged vanilla-sources-3.0 after deleting 
the tarball. I did not use my digital wrist-watch which I could have done, 
instead I looked into emerge.log. The long numbers to the left are seconds 
since 1970, the difference is what genlop uses. The only question was 
whether it uses the line 'emerge (x of y) category/package-version to /' or 
'(x of y) Compiling/Packaging ...' to determine the start time.

> >> I set mine to fetch in the
> >> background so most of the time the fetch is done after a couple
> >> packages gets compiled.
> > 
> > What about parallel emerges? I guess genlop will not take this into
> > account.
> 
> I would think not.  As long as the tarball is downloaded before emerge
> gets to it to compile.  I doubt it would even know how long it took to
> download either.

I wasn't talking about the download time here, but about the total time. If 
I emerge two independent packages A and B, which take one hour each to 
build, what does genlop say if I use emerge -j and they build in parallel? 
This would take about two hours for each. And indeed, that's what genlop 
says. So genlop -t is inaccurate when you are emerging with the -j option.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

On Friday 29 Jul 2011 13:07:35 YoYo Siska wrote:

> > 
> > Here is mine:
> >      Wed May 25 10:07:18 2011 >>> app-office/libreoffice-3.3.2
> >      
> >        merge time: 34 minutes and 10 seconds.
> > 
> > On my Intel Core i7 920 with 12GB of RAM using tmpfs. :)
> > 
> > Do those merge times include download time? I wonder...
> 
> BTW, I was emerging libreoofice yesterday, and it took ~3.5 hours,
> although OOo usually took ~1 hour. It seemed as if it wasn't doing
> anything paralell, so I blamed my MAKEOPTS="-j -l4" (to which I changed
> some time ago, but all the OOo compiles were before that). I just tried
> today again with MAKEOPTS=-j4 and it took only ~1 hour ;).
> Guess dmake doesn't know the --load-average stuff ;)

Hmm, OOo has failed many a time here with -j9.  So now I always emerge it with 
-j1.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Mick wrote:
> On Friday 29 Jul 2011 13:07:35 YoYo Siska wrote:
>
>    
>>> Here is mine:
>>>       Wed May 25 10:07:18 2011>>>  app-office/libreoffice-3.3.2
>>>
>>>         merge time: 34 minutes and 10 seconds.
>>>
>>> On my Intel Core i7 920 with 12GB of RAM using tmpfs. :)
>>>
>>> Do those merge times include download time? I wonder...
>>>        
>> BTW, I was emerging libreoofice yesterday, and it took ~3.5 hours,
>> although OOo usually took ~1 hour. It seemed as if it wasn't doing
>> anything paralell, so I blamed my MAKEOPTS="-j -l4" (to which I changed
>> some time ago, but all the OOo compiles were before that). I just tried
>> today again with MAKEOPTS=-j4 and it took only ~1 hour ;).
>> Guess dmake doesn't know the --load-average stuff ;)
>>      
> Hmm, OOo has failed many a time here with -j9.  So now I always emerge it with
> -j1.
>    

I been emerging with -j5 for ages.  I haven't had any problems with that 
before.  I have read about others having it but just not me.  That is 
the weird part.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[BRM]

>From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
>To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:41 AM
>Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I noticed this today:
>>
>> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
>> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
>> # Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> (27 Jul 2011)
>> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
>> # app-office/openoffice -> app-office/libreoffice
>> # app-office/openoffice-bin -> app-office/libreoffice-bin
>> # app-text/wpd2sxw -> app-text/wpd2odt
>>>=app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>>
>>
>> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?
>
>Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
>
>Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
>anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice (those
>patches included in mainline), and using the two I can honestly say
>there's really no difference as far as I can tell, aside from the
>splash screen. Somebody posted about some Sun templates a while
>back... maybe something proprietary like that is changed, but
>OpenTemplate.org is meant to replace those anyway.
>
>I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
>


I wouldn't. While LibreOffice may have some advances at the moment, I'm still interested in following main-line OOo - now being setting under Apache.

Please do not force us to convert from OO to LO. I have no problem with separate installs for each, but there will be those (like me) that want the official OO installs.

That said, I have more confidence in Apache managing OO than I do TDF with LO, having observed TDF's mailing lists for several months (before finally dropping off in favor of Apache OO). I know others will have different opinions; but that (again) is why we should allow those using OO to remain using OO.


Ben

Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

BRM wrote:
>> From: Paul Hartman<paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>      
>>> I noticed this today:
>>>
>>> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
>>> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>>> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
>>> # Tomáš Chvátal<scarabeus@gentoo.org>  (27 Jul 2011)
>>> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
>>> # app-office/openoffice ->  app-office/libreoffice
>>> # app-office/openoffice-bin ->  app-office/libreoffice-bin
>>> # app-text/wpd2sxw ->  app-text/wpd2odt
>>>        
>>>> =app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>>>>          
>>>
>>> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?
>>>        
>> Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
>>
>> Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
>> anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice (those
>> patches included in mainline), and using the two I can honestly say
>> there's really no difference as far as I can tell, aside from the
>> splash screen. Somebody posted about some Sun templates a while
>> back... maybe something proprietary like that is changed, but
>> OpenTemplate.org is meant to replace those anyway.
>>
>> I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
>>
>>      
>
> I wouldn't. While LibreOffice may have some advances at the moment, I'm still interested in following main-line OOo - now being setting under Apache.
>
> Please do not force us to convert from OO to LO. I have no problem with separate installs for each, but there will be those (like me) that want the official OO installs.
>
> That said, I have more confidence in Apache managing OO than I do TDF with LO, having observed TDF's mailing lists for several months (before finally dropping off in favor of Apache OO). I know others will have different opinions; but that (again) is why we should allow those using OO to remain using OO.
>
>
> Ben
>
>
>    

If you want it to stay in the tree, you will have to find someone to 
maintain it or maintain it yourself.  Otherwise, it looks like OOo is 
going to be checking out pretty soon.  I would rather stay with OOo 
myself but I'm not a dev and to be honest, have no interest in being one 
either.

Just saying.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Dale]

Alex Schuster wrote:
> Dale writes:
>
>    
>> Alex Schuster wrote:
>>      
>>> Dale writes:
>>>        
>    
>>>> But if you emerge something and it has to be fetched first, is that
>>>> counted in the time genlop shows or not?  That is the question.  I
>>>> don't think it is counted but I'm not sure.
>>>>          
>>> That's what I thought, too, but then I simply tried to be sure.
>>> Download time _is_ counted.
>>>        
>> Now we know.  If I was on dial-up again, I could sure test that theory.
>> 3KBs/sec would certainly make a difference.  :-(  Pardon me if I refuse
>> to go back tho.  I like youtube to much.
>>      
> It's easier than that, I simply emerged vanilla-sources-3.0 after deleting
> the tarball. I did not use my digital wrist-watch which I could have done,
> instead I looked into emerge.log. The long numbers to the left are seconds
> since 1970, the difference is what genlop uses. The only question was
> whether it uses the line 'emerge (x of y) category/package-version to /' or
> '(x of y) Compiling/Packaging ...' to determine the start time.
>
>    

Smarty pants.  :-P   LOL

>>>> I set mine to fetch in the
>>>> background so most of the time the fetch is done after a couple
>>>> packages gets compiled.
>>>>          
>>> What about parallel emerges? I guess genlop will not take this into
>>> account.
>>>        
>> I would think not.  As long as the tarball is downloaded before emerge
>> gets to it to compile.  I doubt it would even know how long it took to
>> download either.
>>      
> I wasn't talking about the download time here, but about the total time. If
> I emerge two independent packages A and B, which take one hour each to
> build, what does genlop say if I use emerge -j and they build in parallel?
> This would take about two hours for each. And indeed, that's what genlop
> says. So genlop -t is inaccurate when you are emerging with the -j option.
>
> 	Wonko
>
>    

Yea, when you have multiple compiles running at the same time, genlop is 
off from then on.  It is the only thing I don't like about that option.  
Doing a genlop -t <package name> is no longer accurate either.  I do use 
that sometimes too.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-07-29, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
>>To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>>Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:41 AM
>>Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I noticed this today:
>>>
>>> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
>>> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>>> # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
>>> # Tom???? Chv??tal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> (27 Jul 2011)
>>> # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
>>> # app-office/openoffice -> app-office/libreoffice
>>> # app-office/openoffice-bin -> app-office/libreoffice-bin
>>> # app-text/wpd2sxw -> app-text/wpd2odt
>>>>=app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the tree?
>>
>>Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
>>
>>Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
>>anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice

[...]

>>I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
>
> I wouldn't. While LibreOffice may have some advances at the moment,
> I'm still interested in following main-line OOo - now being setting
> under Apache.

So you don't use the gentoo OOo ebuilds?  AFAICT, they're a lot closer
to being libreoffice than to being mainline OOo.

> Please do not force us to convert from OO to LO.

If you use the gentoo ebuilds, then you mostly already have.

Gentoo OOo  = OOo + Go-Oo

LibreOffice = OOo + Go-Oo

> I have no problem with separate installs for each, but there will be
> those (like me) that want the official OO installs.

But, what you get using the Gentoo ebuilds isn't the official OOo
install.  If you're running official OOo, then youre not using the
Gentoo ebuilds, so why do you care what those ebuilds produce?

One of the things I like about LibreOffice is the reduced
dependancies.  Even with the gnome USE flag turned off, OOo pulls in
some big gnome dependancies that I don't want.  WTF does an office
suite need libgweather?

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[BRM]

----- Original Message -----

> From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?
> On 2011-07-29, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
>>> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Openoffice being replaced?
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>>>  I noticed this today:
>>>> 
>>>>  The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
>>>>  #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>>>>  # /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
>>>>  # Tom???? Chv??tal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> (27 Jul 2011)
>>>>  # Old replaced packages. Will be removed in 30 days.
>>>>  # app-office/openoffice -> app-office/libreoffice
>>>>  # app-office/openoffice-bin -> app-office/libreoffice-bin
>>>>  # app-text/wpd2sxw -> app-text/wpd2odt
>>>>> =app-office/openoffice-3.2.1-r1
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  Does this mean that libreoffice is going to replace OOo in the 
> tree?
>>> 
>>> Looks like it. It has already replaced it on all my computers.
>>> 
>>> Gentoo's OpenOffice has included the go-oo patches for a long time
>>> anyway, which were the big thing changed about LibreOffice
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
>> 
>>  I wouldn't. While LibreOffice may have some advances at the moment,
>>  I'm still interested in following main-line OOo - now being setting
>>  under Apache.
> 
> So you don't use the gentoo OOo ebuilds?  AFAICT, they're a lot closer
> to being libreoffice than to being mainline OOo.
> 
>>  Please do not force us to convert from OO to LO.
> 
> If you use the gentoo ebuilds, then you mostly already have.
> Gentoo OOo  = OOo + Go-Oo
> LibreOffice = OOo + Go-Oo

There's other stuff in LibreOffice too. But I'd still much rather be using OOo than LibreOffice.

And I'd rather drop the GO-OOo patches, but I don't think there's an option for that in emerge.
 
>>  I have no problem with separate installs for each, but there will be
>>  those (like me) that want the official OO installs.
> 
> But, what you get using the Gentoo ebuilds isn't the official OOo
> install.  If you're running official OOo, then youre not using the
> Gentoo ebuilds, so why do you care what those ebuilds produce?
> 
> One of the things I like about LibreOffice is the reduced
> dependancies.  Even with the gnome USE flag turned off, OOo pulls in
> some big gnome dependancies that I don't want.  WTF does an office
> suite need libgweather?

And I'm sure the Apache OO guys will fix that in due time as well.

All I'm saying is that I want to stick with the Apache OOo in the long run, not LibreOffice.
Users can switch to the LibreOffice install if they desire, but there's no reason for force those that want to continue with OOo to move over.

Ben

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:46 PM, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com>
> All I'm saying is that I want to stick with the Apache OOo in the long run, not LibreOffice.

Grant's point (if I read it correctly) was that you were effectively
using LO, just with OOo branding, because the Go-Oo patches were
already being applied. In short, no functional distinction. So why
care now, when nothing's really changed?

> Users can switch to the LibreOffice install if they desire, but there's no reason for force those that want to continue with OOo to move over.

Except that, on Gentoo, they effectively already had, without
realizing it. Sure, OOo and LO may take different paths going forward,
but, on Gentoo, they were already largely equivalent in deviation from
OOo upstream.

Perhaps what you want to do is ask that someone *add* and maintain an
"authentic" OOo ebuild?

(If there was demand for an authentic OOo ebuild, why wasn't there one already?)

-- 
:wq

[gentoo-user] Re: Openoffice being replaced?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-08-01, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> I would say switch to LibreOffice and don't look back. :)
>>> 
>>>  I wouldn't. While LibreOffice may have some advances at the moment,
>>>  I'm still interested in following main-line OOo - now being setting
>>>  under Apache.
>> 
>> So you don't use the gentoo OOo ebuilds?? AFAICT, they're a lot closer
>> to being libreoffice than to being mainline OOo.
>> 
>>>  Please do not force us to convert from OO to LO.
>> 
>> If you use the gentoo ebuilds, then you mostly already have.
>> Gentoo OOo? = OOo + Go-Oo
>> LibreOffice = OOo + Go-Oo
>
> There's other stuff in LibreOffice too. But I'd still much rather be
> using OOo than LibreOffice.
>
> And I'd rather drop the GO-OOo patches, but I don't think there's an
> option for that in emerge.

Not that I've noticed.

>>> I have no problem with separate installs for each, but there will be
>>> those (like me) that want the official OO installs.
>> 
>> But, what you get using the Gentoo ebuilds isn't the official OOo
>> install. If you're running official OOo, then youre not using the
>> Gentoo ebuilds, so why do you care what those ebuilds produce?
>> 
>> One of the things I like about LibreOffice is the reduced
>> dependancies. Even with the gnome USE flag turned off, OOo pulls in
>> some big gnome dependancies that I don't want.? WTF does an office
>> suite need libgweather?
>
> And I'm sure the Apache OO guys will fix that in due time as well.
>
> All I'm saying is that I want to stick with the Apache OOo in the
> long run, not LibreOffice.

And what I'm saying is that if you're using the Gentoo ebuilds, you
abandoned official OOo a long time ago and are already a ways down the
road that LO is taking.

If you want to stick with Apache OOo, that's cool.

However, the old OOo ebuilds were a long ways from the official branch
of OOo before LO came along. So, for people who want to stick with
Apache OOo, it doesn't matter that the old OOo ebuilds are being
dropped.

> Users can switch to the LibreOffice install if they desire, but
> there's no reason for force those that want to continue with OOo to
> move over.

I'm not saying they should be forced to, but it seems like they're
fooling themselves if they think that the old Gentoo OOo ebuilds were
closer to "official OOo" than to LO.  That's probably why the old OOo
ebuilds are being dropped -- they're mostly redundant now that LO has
come along and incorporated GoOo patches.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I wish I was on a
                                  at               Cincinnati street corner
                              gmail.com            holding a clean dog!