In <20060826231042.GI16768@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>, Peter Jeremy <email@example.com> typed:
> >> > > > 3) openoffice doesn't build on amd64, and the i386 build doesn't run
> >> > > > on amd64, so the recommended way to run openoffice on amd64 is to
> >> > > > run the Linux build.
> OOo2.0 should (and generally does) build. The entire OOo port seems
> very fragile and occasionally breaks for no obvious reason. I don't
> recall ever seeing the recommendation to use the Linux build, though.
> If you have problems with building OOo on a reasonably up-to-date
> -stable or -current amd64 system, with an up-to-date ports tree, I
> suggest you take it up on freebsd-openoffice.
Just to clarify, I came across a number of posts to the effect that
"the Linux build is the only alternative for OOo at this point" while
googling for information about it, and the build was failing for
me. This was sort of the point of asking - to see if my from searching
the web after the build failed for me was correct.
It appears that one of the source tarballs for OOo was busted; a very
recent change to the port deals with that. So I updated my ports tree,
did "make distclean; make" to restart it. The version of OOo that it
grabs is clearly newer than the old one; it deals with gethostbyname_r
having been MFC'ed, which the sources I was trying previously didn't.
All in all, the move from 5-STABLE/i368 to 6-STABLE/amd64 has been
relatively painless. I think I had four things that didn't just build:
three of them had relatively painless workarounds, and OOo.
Mike Meyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.