[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Why not /usr/bin64?

2006/1/15, Christopher Aillon <caillon redhat com>:
On 01/14/2006 01:07 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>> Neal Becker schrieb:
>>> 1) 32bit in /usr/bin32, 64bit in /usr/bin64, and /usr/bin->/usr/bin64
>>> 2) 32bit in /usrbin32, 64bit in /usr/bin
>> Nice solution. However, what exactly is the problem that this solves?
> Meant /usr/bin32.  Anyway, problem is how to install both 64 and 32 bit
> versions of your favorite app.  Like, mozilla.  We x86_64 64bit users often
> have to install a 32bit browser so that 32bit plugins will work.

Users don't care whether they have the 32 or 64 bit version in general.
This would not be a big deal for you I bet if plugins worked with the
64bit binaries.  That is the real problem you are trying to solve.  This
is the wrong way to solve it.

The real solution is the plugin vendors should provide 64bit versions.

If you want a workaround, try a "plugin plugin" which is a 64bit plugin
meant to handle the 32bit plugins out of process.  See
http://www.gibix.net/projects/nspluginwrapper/ for a non-free

fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com
Actually the only package i know where this would make sense is WINE.
32 bit compiled wine runs 16/32bit win binarys
64 bit compiled wine runs 64 bit win binarys
actually though i dont think its worth to have another binary dir. just packaging it to another %{name} is sufficient in my eyes.
Rudolf Kastl


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]