'Twas brillig, and zezinho at 25/02/12 00:00 did gyre and gimble:
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 22:25:39, Sander Lepik a écrit :
Sorry, but i can't agree. Why is it so bad if 32-bit Core is enabled? Hide
32-bit packages when there is 64-bit package too. But don't break
usability. get-skype is
25.02.2012 12:39, Colin Guthrie kirjutas:
'Twas brillig, and zezinho at 25/02/12 00:00 did gyre and gimble:
Shouldn't get-skype be 32bit if it needs 32bit libs?
Perhaps, but then it wouldn't show up to 64 bit users if they don't add
32-bit core which is the suggestion here.
They would have to
Le samedi 25 février 2012 11:44:58, Sander Lepik a écrit :
They would have to add 32-bit core + 32-bit nonfree (as Skype is in
nonfree) which is not even listed media for 64-bit system.
So for now Skype is not avalaible in x86_64 without activating 32-bit nonfree?
25.02.2012 13:47, zezinho kirjutas:
Le samedi 25 février 2012 11:44:58, Sander Lepik a écrit :
They would have to add 32-bit core + 32-bit nonfree (as Skype is in
nonfree) which is not even listed media for 64-bit system.
So for now Skype is not avalaible in x86_64 without activating 32-bit
Le samedi 25 février 2012 à 14:04 +0200, Sander Lepik a écrit :
25.02.2012 13:47, zezinho kirjutas:
Le samedi 25 février 2012 11:44:58, Sander Lepik a écrit :
They would have to add 32-bit core + 32-bit nonfree (as Skype is in
nonfree) which is not even listed media for 64-bit system.
25.02.2012 14:39, Michael Scherer kirjutas:
Le samedi 25 février 2012 à 14:04 +0200, Sander Lepik a écrit :
25.02.2012 13:47, zezinho kirjutas:
Le samedi 25 février 2012 11:44:58, Sander Lepik a écrit :
They would have to add 32-bit core + 32-bit nonfree (as Skype is in
nonfree) which is not
Le samedi 25 février 2012 à 14:59 +0200, Sander Lepik a écrit :
25.02.2012 14:39, Michael Scherer kirjutas:
Le samedi 25 février 2012 à 14:04 +0200, Sander Lepik a écrit :
25.02.2012 13:47, zezinho kirjutas:
Le samedi 25 février 2012 11:44:58, Sander Lepik a écrit :
They would have to add
Op zaterdag 25 februari 2012 14:20:09 schreef Michael Scherer:
[...]
So the package should be fixed, because currently, the deps are broken
( ie, the self containement rule is broken ), and that's IMHO enough for
warranting a removal of the package if no one step to correct that.
huh, i
On 24.02.2012 12:09, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But once
more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which make the
list less readable. For a beginner, this is more annoying.
So, I have unselected Core 32 bit
24.02.2012 13:09, Pierre Jarillon kirjutas:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But once
more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which make the
list less readable. For a beginner, this is more annoying.
So, I have unselected Core 32 bit
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But
once
more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which make the
list less readable. For a beginner, this is more annoying.
I have also noticed that some
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 12:14:30, nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But
once more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which
make the list less readable. For a
On Friday, 24 February 2012 13:09:45 Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But
once more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which
make the list less readable.
Then rpmdrake shouldn't be showing libraries by default.
nicolas vigier skrev 24.2.2012 13:14:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But once
more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which make the
list less readable. For a beginner, this is more
'Twas brillig, and Claire Robinson at 24/02/12 12:00 did gyre and gimble:
On 24/02/12 11:39, Thomas Backlund wrote:
nicolas vigier skrev 24.2.2012 13:14:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro.
But once
more, I was
On Friday, 24 February 2012 13:14:30 nicolas vigier wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But
once more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which
make the list less readable. For a
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:26:04 +0200
Buchan Milne
bgmi...@staff.telkomsa.net wrote:
I think rpmdrake should only show x86_64 packages
on x86_64 by default.
So, rpmdrake shouldn't show get-skype or wine32?
That sounds less usable to me.
I guess it could hide 32-bit packages when there's
On Friday, 24 February 2012 14:30:10 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:26:04 +0200
Buchan Milne
bgmi...@staff.telkomsa.net wrote:
I think rpmdrake should only show x86_64 packages
on x86_64 by default.
So, rpmdrake shouldn't show get-skype or wine32?
That sounds
Buchan Milne a écrit :
On Friday, 24 February 2012 13:14:30 nicolas vigier wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But
once more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which
make the
Colin Guthrie skrev 24.2.2012 14:13:
noarch packages should be available in both, but as a quirk urpmi and
friends sometimes prefer downloading them via the 32 bit repo. If the
repo was removed it should find them via the 64 bit repo happily.
Afaik tv fixed this recently, so it will prerfer
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:37:48 +0200
Buchan Milne
bgmi...@staff.telkomsa.net wrote:
On Friday, 24 February 2012 14:30:10 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:26:04 +0200
Buchan Milne
bgmi...@staff.telkomsa.net wrote:
I think rpmdrake should only show x86_64 packages
on
On 24/02/12 13:02, Thomas Backlund wrote:
Colin Guthrie skrev 24.2.2012 14:13:
noarch packages should be available in both, but as a quirk urpmi and
friends sometimes prefer downloading them via the 32 bit repo. If the
repo was removed it should find them via the 64 bit repo happily.
Afaik
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Buchan Milne wrote:
On Friday, 24 February 2012 13:14:30 nicolas vigier wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But
once more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake
On 24 February 2012 12:09, Pierre Jarillon jaril...@abul.org wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But once
more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which make the
list less readable. For a beginner, this is more annoying.
So, I have
On 24 February 2012 12:31, Buchan Milne bgmi...@zarb.org wrote:
On Friday, 24 February 2012 13:09:45 Pierre Jarillon wrote:
I have just installed Mga2b1 x86_64 and it is already a great distro. But
once more, I was annoyed with an unuseful bunch of rpm in rpmdrake which
make the list less
On 24 February 2012 13:13, Colin Guthrie mag...@colin.guthr.ie wrote:
noarch packages should be available in both, but as a quirk urpmi and
friends sometimes prefer downloading them via the 32 bit repo. If the
repo was removed it should find them via the 64 bit repo happily.
It now always
Op vrijdag 24 februari 2012 15:19:02 schreef nicolas vigier:
[...]
Yes I think that would be nice. And only showing one entry for multiple
versions of the same package, defaulting to the latest version (currently
all versions from release and updates repositories are shown).
yes, that would
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 à 12:12 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
I think wine is using 32bit packages too.
I think people who are able to use wine ( who is far from being fool
proof enough ) are also able to read a doc explaining how to enable 32
bits repositories, and wine by itself is
Michael Scherer skrev 24.2.2012 19:14:
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 à 12:12 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
I think wine is using 32bit packages too.
I think people who are able to use wine ( who is far from being fool
proof enough ) are also able to read a doc explaining how to enable 32
Thomas Backlund a écrit :
Michael Scherer skrev 24.2.2012 19:14:
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 à 12:12 +0100, Kamil Rytarowski a écrit :
I think wine is using 32bit packages too.
I think people who are able to use wine ( who is far from being fool
proof enough ) are also able to read a doc
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 16:24:31, Thierry Vignaud a écrit :
No.
Ony may want to run the 32bit version of some program because it eat less
memory (eg: firefox)
I agree. If I try to summary all this discuss, we should :
- default to disable 32b on x86_64
- only show latest and best vlc :
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 22:25:39, Sander Lepik a écrit :
Sorry, but i can't agree. Why is it so bad if 32-bit Core is enabled? Hide
32-bit packages when there is 64-bit package too. But don't break
usability. get-skype is noarch package. That means it is in 64-bit nonfree
too. So user
On 25.02.2012 01:00, zezinho wrote:
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 22:25:39, Sander Lepik a écrit :
Sorry, but i can't agree. Why is it so bad if 32-bit Core is enabled? Hide
32-bit packages when there is 64-bit package too. But don't break
usability. get-skype is noarch package. That means it is
33 matches
Mail list logo
