On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:45:09PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > Hello! > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:06:33PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote: > >Attached is a port that for the binary version of OpenOffice. I just > >wanted to hear, if it's worth my time to continue and extend (other > >languages as subpackages) this port or if I just produced crap that nobody > >needs. > > >Currently there are no instructions in pkg/MESSAGE on how to create the > >/proc filesystem, because i'm not sure if it's really needed... > > Haven't you just tried it out?
I have and it works fine without procfs for me, but OpenOffice has lot's of odd functions and I use maybe 5% of them. > > I'd think a port like yours *is* definitely useful. Of course, it'd be > the best thing to make a native port, but as far as I can understand, > that's quite difficult due to not quite portable upstream code. And so a > emulated Linux binary would be more than nothing. I think it was pvalchev@ who tried to build it from sources and stoped after 200 (?) or more patches. I wasted a complete weekend to get the build system going and started patching, it's really no fun. > > I haven't tested your port yet, but perhaps I can do so soon. > > >Tobias > > Kind regards, > > Hannah. > > I got some postitive feedback privately. A common question is stability. There is nothing I can do.. It works, but I suggest to (auto)save often. Sometimes it freezes or burns cpu-cycles in endless loops. It's the same quality you get if you follow the "howto" that is on various blogs. Btw: pkg/DESCR lacks a good description... I'm happy about any diffs ;) Tobias
