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

Re: fedora64

On Friday 20 February 2004 09:50, Paul Sundling wrote:
> I was wondering if there was a seperate list for the AMD64 fedora?

Besides amd64-list redhat com, there is discussion on this list for FC1test1.

> In general I get quite a few rpms that fail a dependcy on one of the
> libraries that exists in /usr/lib64, but are presumably expected to be
> in /usr/lib.  Would it be a bad idea to have the 32 bit versions of the
> libraries in /usr/lib besides the /usr/lib64 libraries?  Perhaps it's
> better to have things fail to get developers to build 64 bit rpms, but
> it also might be nice to use the promise of mixing 32 and 64 bit too.

What packages?  Are these packages rebuilt for x86_64 or are the ix86 

The current set of i386 packages in FC1test1 x86_64 are very limited.  Since 
almost all of the packages in FC1test1 x86_64 have been ported/rebuilt for 
x86_64, only a few i386 (or i686) packages are provided in the distribution.  
To install any arbitrary i386 package you will likely need many more.

You almost need the entire i386 distribution installed in addition to the 
x86_64 distribution.  SUSE does something like that (their distribution takes 
two DVDs) whereas Red Hat/Fedora takes a more minimalist approach of x86_64 
packages plus a minimum number of i386 packages (Fedora fits on a single 
DVD).  Neither one is right or wrong ... just different approaches.

Adding i386 packages post system install is a bit tricky since, while 
libraries are handled via the /usr/lib and/usr/lib64 split, all programs (32 
bit and 64 bit) go into /usr/bin (or /sbin, /usr/sbin, etc.).

So far, I have been able to rebuild anything I wanted as a 64 bit application 
although some took more effort (nessus) than others.

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