Flávio Etrusco spake thusly:
>>> Exacty. That's precicely my point. Fedora, Mandriva and openSUSE have
>>> thsi down.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with rpm versus deb. It just happens that their
>> repo layout/structure was much more conducive to packaging properly for
>> 64-bit.
>>
>>
> IIRC r
On Wednesday, March 17, 2010 08:15 AM, Flávio Etrusco wrote:
>>>
>>> Exacty. That's precicely my point. Fedora, Mandriva and openSUSE have
>>> thsi down.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with rpm versus deb. It just happens that their
>> repo layout/structure was much more conducive to packaging prop
>>
>> Exacty. That's precicely my point. Fedora, Mandriva and openSUSE have
>> thsi down.
>
> Which has nothing to do with rpm versus deb. It just happens that their
> repo layout/structure was much more conducive to packaging properly for
> 64-bit.
>
IIRC rpm allows installing multiple versions
On Wednesday, March 17, 2010 03:10 AM, Scott Beamer wrote:
> Christopher Chan spake thusly:
>
>>> I don't mean to be a "[citation needed] troll", but I've honestly never
>>> heard anything suggesting this before. Would you mind explaining how
>>> RPMs handle 32/64 better than DEBs? My understanding
Christopher Chan spake thusly:
>> I don't mean to be a "[citation needed] troll", but I've honestly never
>> heard anything suggesting this before. Would you mind explaining how
>> RPMs handle 32/64 better than DEBs? My understanding was that as long
>> as you installed ia32-libs then you shouldn'
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Christopher Chan
wrote:
>
> > I don't mean to be a "[citation needed] troll", but I've honestly never
> > heard anything suggesting this before. Would you mind explaining how
> > RPMs handle 32/64 better than DEBs? My understanding was that as long as
> > you insta
> I don't mean to be a "[citation needed] troll", but I've honestly never
> heard anything suggesting this before. Would you mind explaining how
> RPMs handle 32/64 better than DEBs? My understanding was that as long as
> you installed ia32-libs then you shouldn't have to do anything else; the
> s
Evan spake thusly:
> I don't mean to be a "[citation needed] troll", but I've honestly never
> heard anything suggesting this before. Would you mind explaining how
> RPMs handle 32/64 better than DEBs? My understanding was that as long as
> you installed ia32-libs then you shouldn't have to do any
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Scott Beamer
wrote:
> Thomas Tempelmann spake thusly:
>
> >... I've created a 32 bit application that uses Gtk 2, which
> > launches fine on the 32 Bit Ubuntu 9.10 default installation.
> >
> > But when I launch the same app on the 64 bit Ubuntu version, the
> > fo
Thomas Tempelmann spake thusly:
>... I've created a 32 bit application that uses Gtk 2, which
> launches fine on the 32 Bit Ubuntu 9.10 default installation.
>
> But when I launch the same app on the 64 bit Ubuntu version, the
> following things happen..
[...]
The problem is that Debian (an
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Thomas Tempelmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 00:26, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> wrote:
>
> > I don't think an error is needed. Generally on Ubuntu you launch
> > .desktop files of applications installed using Software Centre /
> > Synaptic / apt. All of which are of
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 00:26, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
wrote:
> I don't think an error is needed. Generally on Ubuntu you launch
> .desktop files of applications installed using Software Centre /
> Synaptic / apt. All of which are of correct architecture.
I disagree. I think it's important to get your
On 14 March 2010 22:40, Thomas Tempelmann wrote:
> Hi there,
> this is my first post. I've signed up here because I have a particular
> problem I like to discuss with the developers.
>
> I'm a long-time software developer, although I'm not a big fan of Unix and
> derivates. I am mostly developing
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 23:52, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> ldd
>
> Will at least give you the list of shared libraries that your binary is
> using an if not present, tell you so.
Yes, it appears to find them all, mostly in /usr/lib32 and /lib32,
which is expected, I assume. Only exceptions not in l
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 23:40 +0100, Thomas Tempelmann wrote:
> Hi there,
> this is my first post. I've signed up here because I have a particular
> problem I like to discuss with the developers.
>
> I'm a long-time software developer, although I'm not a big fan of Unix and
> derivates. I am mostly
Hi there,
this is my first post. I've signed up here because I have a particular
problem I like to discuss with the developers.
I'm a long-time software developer, although I'm not a big fan of Unix and
derivates. I am mostly developing for OS X, and used to do for classic Mac
OS, so I'm more of a
16 matches
Mail list logo
