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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
