Re: junk showing up in /emul/ia32-linux
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:09:33AM -0800, Larry Doolittle wrote: Nope. It's not 64-bit clean source code. Besides, I'm an old TeX-head, and TeX works just fine. Sounds like a great choice to me. Jo Shields wrote: or lilo/grub That's a strange special case, since I guess the BIOS jumps to the boot sector code in 32-bit mode. I suppose in the long run I could fix that problem by running LinuxBIOS. It isn't even 32bit mode when the boot loader starts. How did grub manage to get built before the days of /emul/ia32-linux? And that need can hardly explain libg2c0-dev libgfortran0-dev. Unless someone rewrote grub in Fortran when I wasn't looking. ;-) Will multi-arch make the situation cleaner or dirtier for people like me who only want support for one arch variant? I doubt it would be cleaner. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: junk showing up in /emul/ia32-linux
Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:09:33AM -0800, Larry Doolittle wrote: Nope. It's not 64-bit clean source code. Besides, I'm an old TeX-head, and TeX works just fine. Sounds like a great choice to me. Jo Shields wrote: or lilo/grub That's a strange special case, since I guess the BIOS jumps to the boot sector code in 32-bit mode. I suppose in the long run I could fix that problem by running LinuxBIOS. It isn't even 32bit mode when the boot loader starts. How did grub manage to get built before the days of /emul/ia32-linux? And that need can hardly explain libg2c0-dev libgfortran0-dev. Unless someone rewrote grub in Fortran when I wasn't looking. ;-) Will multi-arch make the situation cleaner or dirtier for people like me who only want support for one arch variant? I doubt it would be cleaner. At the very least you wouldn't need to overcome years of muscle memory typing /etab for /etc. To me that's the wors thing about /emul/ia32-linux -- they should have named it something else. -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: junk showing up in /emul/ia32-linux
Larry Doolittle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Friends - I have a really nice amd64 sid machine, which has run solidly for over a year now. I really appreciate all the really hard work behind the scenes that keeps Debian unique and useful. I have never run a 32-bit binary on this computer, and don't see any reason to ... ever. If it's not built from published, 64-bit clean source code, it doesn't belong on my computer. Recently files have started showing up in /emul/ia32-linux. Offending packages are libg2c0-dev, fakeroot, and libgfortran0-dev. I tried submitting bug reports for the first two: #341786 and #341788. The latter got merged with the inverse bug (amd64 junk showing up on i386 machines), #323285, and tagged minor and wontfix. Shall I rm -rf /emul after every apt-get upgrade? Shouldn't there be a way to separate out compatibility cruft, either at the package or installer level? - Larry libg2c0-dev and libgfortran0-dev need stuff in /emul to be able to compile 32bit code. Splitting those few K of libs out into seperate debs just so your /emul stays empty is probably more work and waste then saved. fakeroot absolutely needs the 32bit wraper libs so packages with 32bit code still compile. Or do you want to give up lilo and grub and be unable to boot in the future? Again, splitting the few K out into a fakeroot32 is just unreasonable. If you realy don't want the stuff use dpkg-divert to tell dpkg to ignore those files. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: junk showing up in /emul/ia32-linux
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 10:29 -0800, Larry Doolittle wrote: [...] I have a really nice amd64 sid machine, which has run [...] I have never run a 32-bit binary on this computer, and don't see any reason to ... ever. If it's not built from You apparently do not need OpenOffice.org. published, 64-bit clean source code, it doesn't belong on my computer. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: junk showing up in /emul/ia32-linux
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 10:29 -0800, Larry Doolittle wrote: [...] I have a really nice amd64 sid machine, which has run [...] I have never run a 32-bit binary on this computer, and don't see any reason to ... ever. If it's not built from You apparently do not need OpenOffice.org. published, 64-bit clean source code, it doesn't belong on my computer. Bernd or lilo/grub -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
junk showing up in /emul/ia32-linux
Friends - I have a really nice amd64 sid machine, which has run solidly for over a year now. I really appreciate all the really hard work behind the scenes that keeps Debian unique and useful. I have never run a 32-bit binary on this computer, and don't see any reason to ... ever. If it's not built from published, 64-bit clean source code, it doesn't belong on my computer. Recently files have started showing up in /emul/ia32-linux. Offending packages are libg2c0-dev, fakeroot, and libgfortran0-dev. I tried submitting bug reports for the first two: #341786 and #341788. The latter got merged with the inverse bug (amd64 junk showing up on i386 machines), #323285, and tagged minor and wontfix. Shall I rm -rf /emul after every apt-get upgrade? Shouldn't there be a way to separate out compatibility cruft, either at the package or installer level? - Larry signature.asc Description: Digital signature
