A clipping from the ebuild shows that a comment is quite outdated when compared to my system specs. Looks to me like it was when openoffice.org was quite smaller: According to openoffice.org, it takes approximately 12 hours on a # P3/600 with 256mb ram. And thats where building is its only task. My system is a P3-1Ghz w/ 512MB RAM: Started emerge on: Apr 30, 2004 11:07:22 Ended emerge on: May 1, 02:27 This equivalates to just shy of ~15 hours. I'm wondering if this person with a P3-600 neglected to state his system was SMP! The times variance is quite allot & too much if an advanced user needs to estimate a build time. As such, I believe it's bad data. It might be wise to also state the version (with year/date) of openoffice. I'm not too sure if listing the size of the sources as images are not compiled but are still unpacked to the diskdrive. Azarah's comment is obviously more accurate as it compares well with my system's specs - "6 hours on a P4-1.8Ghz w/ 512MB" Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Expected Results: Might be wise to list the openoffice version (with year/date) with the hardware specs. Whether or not listing the size of the sources would probably be optional, but may help with future estimates. If somebody can verify as to the version/date the comment " it takes approximately 12 hours on a P3/600 with 256mb ram." was made on, i believe it should be removed from the ebuild and replaced with my accurate data. Or just remove it entirely as one can pretty much guess that a p3-1Ghz has roughly 1/2 the power of a p4-1.8Ghz cpu. Anyhow, somehow that P3-600 data is completely inaccurate with the current sources/ebuild. Since I'm crazy, I'll post my compile times with openoffice-2.0 when it's released. ;-)
forgot to mention the version of the ebuild for openoffice: /usr/portage/app-office/openoffice/openoffice-1.1.1-r1.ebuild
You're probably right that compilation takes more time now. A big part of this is caused by the fact that compilers do make a difference, such as cflags do.
I think the comments in the ebuild are just some rough guidelines, but like Paul already said this really depends on your hardware. Still I don't think it is necessary to change the statement in the ebuild, it's not even an ewarn so closing this
well, I'm guessing the build times noted were from a time when OOo was quite a bit smaller, thus, built quite faster with smaller hard drive space requirements. The reason I filed this is because I've built OOo from source several times in the past as well as quite recently and noticed the increase in hdd space requirements (as well as time). The main issue being harddrive space. If somebody remembers from their last time they built OOo or used the ebuild history as a reference on hard drive space requirements, they are really out-dated and underestimated compared to the size of the source todate. So, when this somebody goes to build and finds they run into build errors after a day or so of building, they'll be stumped to find that the space requirements and/or time are double of what stated within the ebuild docs. ...just my opinion as i ran into this personnally. (Leaving this closed as well, as I filed this 4 mos ago.)
