From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LPSfn-0004hc-2t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:31 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D058BE02F0; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF54E02F0 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B2D646C8 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.382 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.382 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 440HXTX-Pndg for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574C2646ED for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LPSfV-0003GX-Ku for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:13 +0000 Received: from 67-220-10-117.usiwireless.com ([67.220.10.117]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:13 +0000 Received: from grante by 67-220-10-117.usiwireless.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:13 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Tips/Tricks for Gentoo on low-spec computer? Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200901201805.58619.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> <49767252.1010908@gmail.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67-220-10-117.usiwireless.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Linux) Sender: news Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 6c44ad88-078c-4a0f-bdc1-fd1facdb9e68 X-Archives-Hash: e8b5a1c15e85ad708fa65d0eadfa1bf4 On 2009-01-21, Dale wrote: > It's funny, I have read a lot of people complain that the binary is the > same way but compiling from source works. Interesting. The reason I > was told I should compile my own is because it was more stable than the > binary. The first time I tried installing OOo, I did the binary install. It wouldn't run, so since then I've always built it. > How do you figure that OOo from source is not supported? I've been wondering that as well. I checked the package database and the OOo ebuild is marked as stable for x86. In my book, that's "supported". Of course that's not be the same thing as "practical" for some machines (I believe my OOo emerge just passed hour 31). It would be interesting to know how much further it's go to go, but as long as it's done in a week or so that'll be good enough. I remember building binutils, gcc, X11, emacs, and so on from sources on a 25MHz 68000 with 4MB of RAM -- that took some patience as well. -- Grant