check if theres an entry in bugzilla... if there isnt add one... the
problem is known...
id add just go and report the bug/problem there if it isnt ... mark it
as "feature request" and comment that you want to have the bug open
until its fixed because you want to use bugzilla what its there for...
track problems.
regards,
Rudolf Kastl
p.s. if the problem is just testing... throw it into rawhide ... thats
what its there for. problems can then be reported upstream properly.
might speed up the development cycle.
28 Oct 2005 00:26:55 -0000, r948gm702@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <r948gm702@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> || Will there be x86_64 builds of OOo?
> || What exactly is the problem?
>
> | The OOo codebase was not written with
> | x86_64 in mind, so there's a lot of
> | cleaning up to do before it compiles and
> | runs cleanly. It's possible to build it
> | nowadays, but it's not fully tested and
> | fixed afaik.
>
> Well, I'm disappointed; I thought that one of
> the goals of OOo 2.0 was to make it 64-bit
> ready. As it stands now, my system has over
> 200MB of i386 cruft that that is required
> because of OOo dependencies. [Of course, the
> fact that OOo is over 300MB on its own
> doesn't help matters.]
>
> ix86_package_sizes=$(rpm -qa --qf "%{ARCH} %{SIZE}\n" | grep ^i.86 | cut -b 6-)
> j=0; for i in $ix86_package_sizes; do j=$[j+i]; done; echo $j
>
> If I run the above bash script, I get
> 520870004 bytes; subtracting the 314251504
> bytes in the OOo package gives a difference
> of about 200MB.
>
> I guess this is an upstream problem? Is this
> something that the Fedora OOo maintainer can
> comment on? It is working, so I won't
> complain too vigorously, but I wouldn't mind
> having that 200MB for something else ...
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
