Re: [gentoo-dev] Linux 2.6.28 stable plans
3. Who's brave enough to put ext4 on / ? :) I've been using ext4 on my / (and /home) for more than a month now, no problems at all, but a quite nice - subjective - performance boost, especially in regards to filesystem checks. Also helped with the ongoing fsync problems with the Awesomebar of Firefox 3. bye Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-office/ooqstart-gnome and app-office/oooqs
I've masked app-office/ooqstart-gnome and app-office/oooqs for upcoming removal in 30 days. Both packages are broken and haven't been maintained upstream for ages. If you want a proper quickstarter for OpenOffice.org use the one which has been provided with the source-based build of OOo for quite some time now. bye Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: glibc-2.6 / gcc-4.2 going into ~arch
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 19:44 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: BTW, the GCC 4.2 porting tracker is bug #162167. If you find any crazyass bugs, please block the tracker bug. Openoffice team, you may want to examine the patch in bug #184054. This is fixed now. bye Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] GUADEC 2006
I'm going, already booked bye Andreas On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:59 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: http://guadec.org/GUADEC2006 Anyone going? Anyone staying in the GNOME village? I'll be there, with a friend. Daniel -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Open Office on x86_64
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 17:52 -0400, Jonathan Smith wrote: Supposedly 2.0.2 was going to be 64-bit clean, but I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. However, there have been reports that oo-build works under a very strict set of conditions. This was the original plan once, but the work didn't get finished in time, so it has been postponed (without exact timetable unfortunately, it's quite a big undertaking). About the current status: Yes with some work on some systems you MIGHT already get it to build, but this won't help you too much, as still a lot of functionality will be broken. bye suka -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] app-office/openoffice-ximian has got to go
Hi, I'm planning on removing app-office/openoffice-ximian from the tree in a week or so. The package has been superseded by app-office/openoffice-2.0, which has every bonus stuff openoffice-ximian ever had. All archs have now moved over to app-office/openoffice-2.0, so this is the right time to say good bye to openoffice-ximian. Also there already has been a dummy ebuild in place for quite some time, which basically tells the users to move on. let's have a cleaner tree ;) Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] app-office/openoffice-ximian-bin up for removal
Hi, If nobody objects (with good reasoning), I'm going to remove app-office/openoffice-ximian-bin from the tree soonish. I've added it back then, when there where some big differences between vanilla OOo and the Ximianized version. Most of this stuff has gone upstream now, so there is no more need to keep it around, especially as it uses a binary from another distribution, which I confess always was a bad hack. Also it hasn't been updated recently (for the same reasons). Everyone wanting to use a binary for OOo should use openoffice-bin instead. bye Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] New local use binfilter for app-office/openoffice
Hi Donnie, On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 12:58 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: binfilter is a very non-obvious name for what it does to anyone unfamiliar with the build system. Why not call it staroffice? binfilter is the project name of this stuff in OOo, so that's the reason it was chosen. It might not be perfect, but it is easy enough to find out what it does (and most shouldn't care about it anyway) but staroffice would be a lot worse in my opinion, as this is just for some ancient StarOffice formats, while the more current ones are supported by default (so it would suggest something wrong) Actually I thought about that issue in advance, but decided that something like binfilter is better than something complicated like staroffice-legacy. bye Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:04 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4) binary packages should never be in /usr/ Is /opt ignored? yes, because our policy specifically says binary packages in /opt It's not that easy for every package. For instance openoffice and openoffice-bin need to got to the same location, cause OOo does a user install and this will break when changing between them (and all the settings / paths and so on). So either we would have both in /opt which then means that the source based OOo is ignored too, or we have them in /usr/lib which results in the ooo-bin annoyance. I would say the second one is less harmful. Btw, there is a long running bug about the revdep-rebuild, which also has a solution for this: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32276 bye Andreas -- Andreas Proschofsky Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
