Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Adam Stiles writes:
Most current 64 bit Linux distributions are not pure 64-bit but
contain both 32 and 64 bit libraries. In other words, they are
multi-arch.
Not multiarch but biarch. Not quite the same thing.
No. They have ia32-libs preinstalled.
Yeah, most likely I was wrong about the time of my last update (see my answer
to Niklas) - sorry :-/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/6/05, Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[RedHat x86_64]
Thanks for your insight in the RedHat way. With already three OSes
installed on my AMD64, I don't feel like trying another one (an
Solaris 10 would be first anyway), but their approach is definitely
relevant for us. Both as an example
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 09:13:47PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
There are not going to be any symlinks at all. There is no need
So, the posted documents are not correct on this (basic, major) point?
They're not (directly) the way that the Debian
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:40:17PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
But it is not incompatible unless you remove the links - and then you are
no longer following the proposal.
As I understand it, /usr/lib is a symlink/hardlink/bindmount to
/usr/lib/i386-linux, not the other way around.
If
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:46:59PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
What's the reason for having both versions of a given app installed?
I'm pretty sure it was decided that was a bad idea and that there wasn't
any good use case for it and so we weren't going to try and support it.
It just doesn't
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:54:06PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
apt-get install A::amd64;
Should automatically uninstall the i386 version of A and install the
amd64 version.
If that's how it is going to behave, I will stick with a chroot for
32bit. Much more useful then. I do have reason to
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:46:59PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
What's the reason for having both versions of a given app installed?
I'm pretty sure it was decided that was a bad idea and that there wasn't
any good use case for it and so we
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:56:34PM -0400, David Wood wrote:
Why bother making it hard when you can just make it easy and link the
whole directory?
You can't make a link to a child of yourself since then the child has no
parent dir to beling to if the parent isn't a directory.
it would work if
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:54:06PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
apt-get install A::amd64;
Should automatically uninstall the i386 version of A and install the
amd64 version.
If that's how it is going to behave, I will stick with a chroot for
Hi,
I wonder, is there any benefit in installing the libc6-i686 package in
the IA32 chroot?
Greetings,
--
Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hmm, I use Acrobat Reader, Mplayer and a bit of Wine on my
pure64. What problems do you have?
The only important thing that distinguishes mplayer from all the other
video players is its ability to use win32 codecs, and thus be actually
useful
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Getting the toolchain adapted is more important than some trivial mv
commands for libs.
You're right, of course, but I don't understand why we should avoid doing
them. With the new dirs in place and linked from the old locations,
package
El mié, 06-07-2005 a las 09:32 -0400, David Wood escribió:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hmm, I use Acrobat Reader, Mplayer and a bit of Wine on my
pure64. What problems do you have?
The only important thing that distinguishes mplayer from all the other
video players
Does anybody (Len?) have an idea what the fps rate for FX 5700LE (with
an AMD64 3200+) should be? Mine is at roughly 1450fps (with default
glxgears), though I remember with an earlier nvidia driver I have it
seen at 2700fps already. I have no clue what the benchmark could be...
Default
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
can't be a symlink to /usr/lib/i386-linux after all. So if programs on
I don't understand. Why not?
Just try it:
- mkdir /usr/lib/i386-linux
- rm -r /usr/lib
- ln -s /usr/lib/i386-linux /usr/lib
Does that work on your machine?
Matthias
--
To
El mié, 06-07-2005 a las 09:11 -0400, Matthias Julius escribió:
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
can't be a symlink to /usr/lib/i386-linux after all. So if programs on
I don't understand. Why not?
Just try it:
- mkdir /usr/lib/i386-linux
- rm -r /usr/lib
Does that work on
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:45:43AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
you've described. You havn't given any reason why a user would have any
use for it. There are quite a few reasons why trying to do such would
Hm, normally, I wouldn't need a firefox with flash plugin or a
mplayer/xine with old
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
1) We are not that compatible to begin with
In what way? We follow LSB and such.
Different baseline libraries, different _available_, _packaged_
libraries, different compiler versions, different directory structures
(for instance, important
Digesting about 8 things into a single response...
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
You only need dpkg support to utilize it. The design is such that the
debs shall remain compatible to older debian. You just don't get the
multiarch benefits. So apt/dpkg are not realy blocking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
This is where it gets ugly. The /usr/share part overlaps between the
two packages. As long as the md5sum of a file is the same rpm will
allow packages to overlap files. (Personally I think that is a bad
thing and should not have been designed that
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:46:59PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
What's the reason for having both versions of a given app installed?
I'm pretty sure it was decided that was a bad idea and that there wasn't
Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
can't be a symlink to /usr/lib/i386-linux after all. So if programs on
I don't understand. Why not?
Just try it:
- mkdir /usr/lib/i386-linux
- rm -r /usr/lib
- ln -s /usr/lib/i386-linux /usr/lib
Does that
Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I wonder, is there any benefit in installing the libc6-i686 package in
the IA32 chroot?
Greetings,
--
Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lot I guess. As much as installing it on an amd64 with
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hmm, I use Acrobat Reader, Mplayer and a bit of Wine on my
pure64. What problems do you have?
The only important thing that distinguishes mplayer from all the other
video players is its ability to use
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Getting the toolchain adapted is more important than some trivial mv
commands for libs.
You're right, of course, but I don't understand why we should avoid
doing them. With the new dirs in place and linked
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mplayer can play all the common files in 64bit directly except the mov
files of current movie trailers. Anything else mplayer needs w32codecs
for are rather uncommon in my experience.
I find 64-bit unplayable real, wmv and mov files to be by far
Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:45:43AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
you've described. You havn't given any reason why a user would have any
use for it. There are quite a few reasons why trying to do such would
Hm, normally, I wouldn't need a firefox with
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
1) We are not that compatible to begin with
In what way? We follow LSB and such.
Different baseline libraries, different _available_, _packaged_
libraries, different compiler versions, different directory
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
They're not (directly) the way that the Debian multiarch is most
likely to go. Unfortunately, the relevant site seems to be down, but
take a look at [1], and possibly some of the other (Google cached)
files in [2].
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Better not try that with /usr/lib. :)
Well, you always have a backup. Right?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
We are not saying you shouldn't make binaries coinstallable for
multiple archs, we are only saying we won't make this a policy. It is
left to each package maintainer to decide if he wants to make the
multiarch change for his
Matthias Julius wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Better not try that with /usr/lib. :)
Well, you always have a backup. Right?
ob-oldtimer-quip
It's not the backup that'll kill you, it's having a dynamically linked
copy of ln that needs something in /usr/lib/ that'll
Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
We are not saying you shouldn't make binaries coinstallable for
multiple archs, we are only saying we won't make this a policy. It is
left to each package maintainer to decide if he
tony mancill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias Julius wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Better not try that with /usr/lib. :)
Well, you always have a backup. Right?
ob-oldtimer-quip
It's not the backup that'll kill you, it's having a dynamically linked
copy of ln
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0400, David Wood wrote:
Something else ugly... Just curious, why would this break:
mkdir /usr
mkdir /usr/lib
ln -s /usr/lib /usr/lib/i386-linux
It's recursive, but it appears functional...
Yes but now all the i386 files are also in /usr/lib which would
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Because there are so very few plugin using programs that need that at
all and changing 16K packages just so maybe 20 packages don't have to
do something special is rather pointless.
Feel free to change mplayer to use
What's the reason for having both versions of a given app installed?
To satisfy multiple dependencies that are must-be-arch
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Frost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 1:47 PM
To: Lennart Sorensen
Cc: David Wood; Hugo Mills; Goswin von
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Go to snapshot.debian.net and fish out the right library versions
suse/rh uses, install them, install the same packages (inetd/xinetd)
suse/rh uses and voila. Compatibility.
Even if libraries were the only issue, aren't there times when the
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
They're not (directly) the way that the Debian multiarch is most
likely to go. Unfortunately, the relevant site seems to be down, but
take a look at [1], and possibly some of the other (Google
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0400, David Wood wrote:
Something else ugly... Just curious, why would this break:
mkdir /usr
mkdir /usr/lib
ln -s /usr/lib /usr/lib/i386-linux
It's recursive, but it appears functional...
Yes but now all the
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:18:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
David Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're right, of course, but I don't understand why we should avoid
doing them. With the new dirs in place and linked from the old
locations, package conversion can start. Until then,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:20:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
We are not saying you shouldn't make binaries coinstallable for
multiple archs, we are only saying we won't
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
It's pretty vague, since it doesn't deal with any of the problems
of actually implementing those (fairly high-level) suggestions in any
given package management system.
That doesn't seem to me like something that's wrong.
Are you saying something
Most of these might be generic sarge install issues. This is the first
sarge I've installed from scratch. I looked in bugs.debian.org, but
couldn't find anything that seemed germain. The last is specific to the
kernel. I used the netinst CD. LanParty NF4 Ultra-D nforce4 mobo.
1) LILO and GRUB
I can verify installation of amd64 debian sarge 3.1r0a net install on
a Tyan S2881 K8SR motherboard.
This motherboard is similar in all respects to the Tyan Thunder K8S
Pro S2882UG3NR save the lack of a scsi controller. This board has no
onboard sound.
Thanks,
Nicholas P. Mueller
--
# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
libgnomeui-common
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
recycle:~# apt-get install libgnomeui-common
Reading package lists...
Building dependency
Hi,
I'm having some trouble with sawfish on my box. In particular:
- Middle mousebutton to get the config menu up crashes sawfish and makes
X unusable until I kill sawfish (ssh in still works).
- Window decorations are bunched up in the top left corner of the window
until it is resized. I can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:34:26PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Because there are so very few plugin using programs that need that at
all and changing 16K packages just so maybe 20 packages don't have to
do something special is rather
Hugo Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0400, David Wood wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Hugo Mills wrote:
They're not (directly) the way that the Debian multiarch is most
likely to go. Unfortunately, the relevant site seems to be down, but
take a look at [1],
Tony Lill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most of these might be generic sarge install issues. This is the first
sarge I've installed from scratch. I looked in bugs.debian.org, but
couldn't find anything that seemed germain. The last is specific to the
kernel. I used the netinst CD. LanParty NF4
Hello, new to Debian, AMD64,
from some searching I found a message in the list that said security
updates for the amd64 port would be released after the release of Sarge:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/05/msg00860.html
Does anyone out there know the timeline for these updates to
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 16:16 +0200, Sven Krahn wrote:
Does anybody (Len?) have an idea what the fps rate for FX 5700LE (with
an AMD64 3200+) should be? Mine is at roughly 1450fps (with default
glxgears), though I remember with an earlier nvidia driver I have it
seen at 2700fps already. I
53 matches
Mail list logo
