FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-14-2011, 03:22 PM
Christopher Hawker
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

I could not see any issues with it. As you probably know i386 packages will work on an x86_64 install, and there are some packages written for i386 that you can't get for x86_64. You could disable it, but my system runs perfect with it.


--
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on +61 478 241 896.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:52 AM, James Nguyen <james@callfire.com> wrote:

Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. *So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. *While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. *I noticed there is already one for x86_64. *I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf.


So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all?
I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the census already knows about this matter as well.

Thanks!--



james h nguyen |*lead systems architect |*www.callfire.com*|*1.949.625.4263





_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list

CentOS@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-14-2011, 04:49 PM
James Nguyen
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Christopher Hawker <cwhawker1@gmail.com> wrote:

I could not see any issues with it. As you probably know i386 packages will work on an x86_64 install, and there are some packages written for i386 that you can't get for x86_64. You could disable it, but my system runs perfect with it.



Yes I do know that i386 will run fine on x86_64. *The intentions is to only install and run what I really need. *I'm already only installing the base and @core packages during a kickstart, so I might as well try and keep it all clean from the get-go, but noticed that some packages do creep in that are not needed seeing there is an x86_64 equivalent. *=)

The packages that are only available via i386 are the ones I'll have to keep indeed. *So the approach I took in excluding those packages would immediately break on a yum update where their dependencies also need upgrading. *I came across this moving from 5.6->5.7.

If there are any best practices approach someone has or some tips and tricks. *I'd much appreciate the advice. *Given security concerns all around, the slimmer my installs are the less I need to worry about some i386 binary that I don't need or nor run. *I treat my services the same. *If you don't need it, don't run it. =)

--
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on +61 478 241 896.


Regards,
Christopher Hawker

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:52 AM, James Nguyen <james@callfire.com> wrote:


Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. *So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. *While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. *I noticed there is already one for x86_64. *I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf.
*
So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all?
I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the census already knows about this matter as well.


Thanks!--




james h nguyen |*lead systems architect |*www.callfire.com*|*1.949.625.4263






_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list

CentOS@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos





_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list

CentOS@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




--


james h nguyen |*lead systems architect |*www.callfire.com*|*1.949.625.4263


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-15-2011, 09:02 AM
John Doe
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

From: James Nguyen <james@callfire.com>

> So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf.
> While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package.

What about using multilib_policy=best instead?

JD

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-15-2011, 06:58 PM
James Nguyen
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

I haven't seen this option before. *Let me do some googling and see if it fits into the solution I'm looking for.
Thanks =)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:02 AM, John Doe <jdmls@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James Nguyen <james@callfire.com>



> So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf.

> While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package.



What about using multilib_policy=best instead?



JD



_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list

CentOS@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



--


james h nguyen |*lead systems architect |*www.callfire.com*|*1.949.625.4263



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-16-2011, 10:01 AM
Michael Simpson
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

On 15 September 2011 19:58, James Nguyen <james@callfire.com> wrote
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:02 AM, John Doe <jdmls@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: James Nguyen <james@callfire.com>
>>
>> > So the premise for this question is that I setup an
>> > exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf.
>> > While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for
>> > instance mkinitrd for the i386 package.
>>

On our 2 colo servers we have one with i386/i686 only and on the other
we are x86_64 only. Everything works (typical LAMP / Sendmail etc
install)
I just followed the intstructions from the centos wiki

http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-357346ff0bf7c14b0849c3bcce39677aaca528e9

i used to regret the lack of a 64 bit native flash plugin which was
the only reason to not move to a pure 64bit enviroment for the desktop
but now that you-tube can serve html5 i no longer care

mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-16-2011, 10:40 AM
Khusro Jaleel
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

On 15/09/11 10:02, John Doe wrote:
> What about using multilib_policy=best instead?
>
> JD

This is what I do as well and it's worked well on many different
machines now. i386/i686 packages are not automatically pulled in
anymore, it automatically selects the right arch (x86_64).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Michael Simpson
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

> There is a 64 bit flashplayer now that seems to work fine on 5.x and
> 6.x. *This is an old link so not sure if it's still good.
>
> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10_square.html
>
Sorry for continuing the OT but i don't want some poor sod finding the
above in google
The "10square" plugin old and deprecated (and broken)
Apparently there will be a native 64bit player in the 11 series but i
stopped caring a while ago.
I find myself agreeing with Jobs about flash and adobe's inability to
code a 64bit plugin suggests much unmaintainable brokenness in the
codebase
html5 ftw

mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:00 AM
Stephen Cox
 
Default Cons of disabling *.i386 and *.i686 in a 64bit Distribution

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Michael Simpson
<mikie.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a 64 bit flashplayer now that seems to work fine on 5.x and
>> 6.x. *This is an old link so not sure if it's still good.
>>
>> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10_square.html
>>
> Sorry for continuing the OT but i don't want some poor sod finding the
> above in google
> The "10square" plugin old and deprecated (and broken)
> Apparently there will be a native 64bit player in the 11 series but i
> stopped caring a while ago.
> I find myself agreeing with Jobs about flash and adobe's inability to
> code a 64bit plugin suggests much unmaintainable brokenness in the
> codebase
> html5 ftw

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplatformruntimes/flashplayer11/

--
Stephen Cox
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:57 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org