Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-20 Thread b stephen harding
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:27:46 +0200 Redeeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i have compiled openoffice-ximian1.1 successful. and what more is, it > seemed that i am the only one that didnt have the copy'n'paste bug :-) > now you might ask: did you make a package?! and yes, i did ;> > i even removed t

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-20 Thread Stroller
On Oct 19, 2003, at 7:37 am, Chris I wrote: On 2003.10.19 00:34, Collins Richey wrote: True enough, but there's no way to modify a pdf. You can create pdf easily enough from other files, but you can't update a pdf. I've never done that on any OS. I'm admittedly not very familiar with the format,

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-19 Thread Bill Kenworthy
Remove all sse2 related use flags - this includes specifying pentium3 instead of pentium4. Built ok then. BillK On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 12:37, Kevin Miller, Jr. wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Second failed install attempt. Here is what I got before OO failed: > > W

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-19 Thread Kevin Miller, Jr.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Second failed install attempt. Here is what I got before OO failed: WARNING! Project(s): gtk not found and couldn't be built. Correct build.lsts. >>> Install openoffice-1.1.0 into /var/tmp/portage/openoffice-1.1.0/image/ category app-office * In

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-19 Thread purslow
031019 Collins Richey wrote: > On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:58:46 +0200 Timo Boettcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> no problem here using GCC 3.2.3 . it took 5 h 45 m , incl download. >>> ordinary ADSL ( c 45 min IIRC), Athlon XP 2500+ , Soyo mobo, >>> 512 MB DDR400. what

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-19 Thread Collins Richey
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:58:46 +0200 Timo Boettcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi purslow, > > Nachricht vom Samstag, 18. Oktober 2003, 23:51:52: > > > 031018 Andrew Gaffney wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> no problem here using GCC 3.2.3 . it took 5 h 45 m , incl > >>> download. You

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-19 Thread Charles Marcus
What I really despise is pdf attachments. OO will create pdf just fine, but there's no way to read and modify it on linux (that I am aware of). There are many pdf viewers for linux. I use gpdf, and have used ggv, xpdf, and a few others. They are fairly decent, but the font rendering, at least

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-19 Thread Redeeman
hehe, the protection from write to pdf's lays in the viewer, if you download xpdf source, there is only 2 places you shall change, and whoop, you are set ;-) but its illegal, and thats why pdf is read-only, so companies can distribute stuff without the ability of others to change and steal. On Su

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Chris I
On 2003.10.19 00:34, Collins Richey wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:06:35 -0400 Chris I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I really despise is pdf attachments. OO will create pdf just > > fine, but > > there's no way to read and modify it on linux (that I am aware of). > > There are many pdf vie

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Collins Richey
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:06:35 -0400 Chris I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I really despise is pdf attachments. OO will create pdf just > > fine, but > > there's no way to read and modify it on linux (that I am aware of). > > There are many pdf viewers for linux. I use gpdf, and have used g

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Chris I
On 2003.10.18 17:50, Collins Richey wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:31:43 +0200 Redeeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i have a Athlon XP1800+ with 640mb ddr pc2100ram, it takes me 3 seconds > to start my own compiled openoffice-ximian1.1-r1, both first and second > time, the openoffice1.0-bin i got t

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Brett I. Holcomb
It worked here. I assume you have a java jre installed? On Saturday 18 October 2003 16:01, you wrote: > It runs for serveral hours and croaks with an undefined symbol error. > Here are that (last few lines upto and including the error) > > Making: ../unxlngi4.pro/lib/libfwe645li.so > > ERROR: Er

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread purslow
031018 Mike Williams wrote: > On Saturday 18 October 2003 22:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> is there a way to tell Emerge to use a specific dir for temporary storage? >> i have a 12 GB part'n specifically intended for that kind of thing, >> which i have mounted simply as /z . > Change the PORTA

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Mike Williams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 18 October 2003 22:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > is there a way to tell Emerge to use a specific dir for temporary storage? > i have a 12 GB part'n specifically intended for that kind of thing, > which i have mounted simply as /z . Cha

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread purslow
031018 Andrew Gaffney wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> no problem here using GCC 3.2.3 . it took 5 h 45 m , incl download. > You must have a very fast connection and a *very* fast computer. ordinary ADSL ( c 45 min IIRC), Athlon XP 2500+ , Soyo mobo, 512 MB DDR400. what worried me was that

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Collins Richey
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:31:43 +0200 Redeeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i have a Athlon XP1800+ with 640mb ddr pc2100ram, it takes me 3 seconds > to start my own compiled openoffice-ximian1.1-r1, both first and second > time, the openoffice1.0-bin i got took 12 seconds first time, and 7 > seconds

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Redeeman
i have a Athlon XP1800+ with 640mb ddr pc2100ram, it takes me 3 seconds to start my own compiled openoffice-ximian1.1-r1, both first and second time, the openoffice1.0-bin i got took 12 seconds first time, and 7 seconds second time, so i am happy with my own compiled ;-) On Sat, 2003-10-18 at 23:2

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Andrew Gaffney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 031018 Kevin Miller, Jr. wrote: Check the forums. There was a discussion about this. I did not succeed in compiling it myself. Seems that those who have the newest versions of gcc are having problems. They do have a solution in the forums. no problem here using GCC 3.2.

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Collins Richey
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:10:52 -0700 "Kevin Miller, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Check the forums. There was a discussion about this. I did not succeed in > compiling it myself. Seems that those who have the newest versions of gcc > are

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread purslow
031018 Kevin Miller, Jr. wrote: > Check the forums. There was a discussion about this. > I did not succeed in compiling it myself. > Seems that those who have the newest versions of gcc are having problems. > They do have a solution in the forums. no problem here using GCC 3.2.3 . it took 5 h 4

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Redeeman
i have compiled openoffice-ximian1.1 successful. and what more is, it seemed that i am the only one that didnt have the copy'n'paste bug :-) now you might ask: did you make a package?! and yes, i did ;> i even removed the filtering stuff in the ebuild so that it uses all my CFLAGS, if there is and

Re: [gentoo-user] Has anyone successfully built OO 1.1 (recently unmasked)

2003-10-18 Thread Kevin Miller, Jr.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Check the forums. There was a discussion about this. I did not succeed in compiling it myself. Seems that those who have the newest versions of gcc are having problems. They do have a solution in the forums. - -- Kevin Miller, Jr. Masters of Pu