On 2009-01-21, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> 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
