Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:25:16 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is this for OO-2 for FBSD? Message-ID: <20071030182516.60f2ebcc@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <4726A335.2080103@gmail.com> References: <20071029201941.GA99664@thought.org> <4726A335.2080103@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:21:25 -0400 "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary Kline wrote: > > I'm in the middle of upgrading some platforms and just > > caught OOo_OOG680_m6_source.tar.bz2 (278MB) being downloaded. The > > port says that this is OO-2.3, but the build says Ishould have > > 11GB of disk and ~2GB of memory. > > > > I somehow downloaded OO_2.3 as a package on one platform. > > Does this make any sense? How many of us have 2 gigs of memory? > > Seems more than a biit irrational to me. Or did my > > portupgrade -aP grab the wrong port? > > > > It got the right port... OOo-2 from ports is really odd anyways... > some people seem to be able to get it made right out of the box and > others can't as far I can tell there is no rhyme or reason as to why > it fails or does not fail.... I wouldn't say that. I've been building it for years, and in my experience it's just like any other port, mostly it builds, occasionally it doesn't, when it doesn't I just stick to the old version until it does. Its complexity make it a bit more unreliable, but not radically so. OTOH I use security branches and i386, so I have every advantage.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071030182516.60f2ebcc>