Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


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

Re: Going back to 32 bit from 64 bit



 Exactly... 


On 10/16/07, Jarod Wilson <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> On Tuesday 16 October 2007 02:56:31 pm Kristian Erik Hermansen wrote: 
> > Well Jon Hermansen, my brother (who is a fedora user), told me that 
> > 64-bit builds of fedora have a fully installable 32-bit firefox 
> > package alongside 64-bit firefoxm. True?  What I meant was that on 
> > ubuntu you had to separately go out and pull down the official binary, 
> > which will not receive important security fixes as I presume you would 
> > with firefox32 on fedora64... 
> 
> Yes, all the 32-bit Fedora stuff is actually in the x86_64 repositories, and 
> properly updated along with everything else when needed. So is it simply a 
> matter of the Ubuntu 64-bit repos not actually having the 32-bit stuff 
> in 'em? 
> 
> 
> 
> > On 10/16/07, Jarod Wilson <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday 16 October 2007 02:25:59 pm Kristian Erik Hermansen wrote: 
> > > > I think you are mistaken.  I have built plenty of both 32-bit and 
> > > > 64-bit binaries on Ubuntu.  They offer both lib32 and lib64 
> > > > directories.  Again, there is no need for a chroot... 
> > > 
> > > Huh. Perhaps I'm getting confused with the early days of 64-bit Debian. 
> > > Honestly, I haven't followed any distributions outside of those built 
> > > inside our own walls in the last year or so... If what you say is true 
> > > (and I assume 
> > > it is), then what exactly are the remaining problems with multi-arch 
> > > support on Ubuntu? 
> > > 
> > > > On 10/16/07, Jarod Wilson <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> > > > > On Oct 16, 2007, at 11:38, Jerry Feldman wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:52:56 -0400 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jarod Wilson <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> > > > > >> A very important distinction to make here: some distributions 
> > > > > >> (including Fedora) have gone to great lengths to try to sanely 
> > > > > >> support multi-arch (mixing of 64-bit and 32-bit applications/ 
> > > > > >> libraries/etc), while others (including Ubuntu) simply punted and 
> > > > > >> require you to set up a chroot to run anything 32-bit on top of a 
> > > > > >> 64- bit environment. Thus its possible to run pretty much any 
> > > > > >> 32-bit userspace application on a 64-bit Fedora install with 
> > > > > >> minimal effort. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Jarod, 
> > > > > > I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on this. As I 
> > > > > > have a few 32-bit things running on Ubuntu 64. Certainly one of 
> the 
> > > > > > things you 
> > > > > > need is to have both the 32-bit as well as 64-bit libraries. As I 
> > > > > > documented, this morning I installed wine, which is a 32-bit 
> > > > > > executable. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As I now understand it, there's actually a ia32-libs package or some 
> > > > > such thing that provides a few essential 32-bit libs for 64-bit 
> > > > > Ubuntu systems, so my blanket statement about requiring a chroot for 
> > > > > anything 32-bit wasn't quite right. However, outside of the scope of 
> > > > > binaries that are built to use those compat libs, 32-bit apps on a 
> > > > > 64- bit Ubuntu system require a 32-bit chroot, as the bulk of 32-bit 
> > > > > and 64-bit libraries are identically named and placed in identical 
> > > > > paths on the file system (typically, /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1). What 
> > > > > Fedora opted to do was put all 64-bit libraries in a different path 
> > > > > (/usr/ lib64/libfoo.so.1), which allows concurrent installation of 
> > > > > both the 32-bit and 64-bit varieties of the very same libraries, and 
> > > > > the 32- bit libraries you install are laid down by the exact same 
> > > > > packages you'd install on a pure 32-bit system. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jarod Wilson 
> [hidden email] 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and 
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
> believed to be clean. 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Discuss mailing list 
> [hidden email] 
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 


BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org