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 > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-26-2012, 05:36 PM
"Hans-J. Ullrich"
 
Default What is the status of multiarch?

Hi all,

it would be nice, if you could tell me, what is the correct debian-way to use
multiarch.

On my 64-bit system I am using only very few applications, which are still 32-
bit. For example wine, skype, x-plane and a few others.

My solution few years ago was, to install a minimal 32-bit debian in a chroot
and just install the needed 32-bit libs within this chroot. (There was a howto
on alioth.) Additionally I installed ia32-libs and linked the further needed
32-bit-libs to the libs in the chroot. This is still working fine.

Now I have seen another kind of solution:

http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO

This describes an complete other way.

My goal is, to interfere as few as possible with the 64-bit system, as I need
only very few libs.

So, as my old configuration is still working fine, but I am always intending to
improve my system, what is the best (debian)-way for my needs?

Every hint is welcome.

Best regards

Hans


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201206261936.41876.hans.ullrich@loop.de">http://lists.debian.org/201206261936.41876.hans.ullrich@loop.de
 
Old 06-26-2012, 09:20 PM
Claudius Hubig
 
Default What is the status of multiarch?

Hello Hans-J.,

"Hans-J. Ullrich" <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
> On my 64-bit system I am using only very few applications, which are still 32-
> bit. For example wine, skype, x-plane and a few others.

> So, as my old configuration is still working fine, but I am always intending to
> improve my system, what is the best (debian)-way for my needs?

It works quite nicely over here on a testing/sid system with the
following packages:

0 23:18 0 claudius@ares: ~ $ dpkg-query -W -f='${Package} ${Version} ${Architecture}
' '*:i386' | column -t
adobereader-enu 9.5.1 i386
gcc-4.7-base 4.7.0-8 i386
libasound2 1.0.25-3 i386
libatk1.0-0 2.4.0-2 i386
libaudio2 1.9.3-5 i386
libavahi-client3 0.6.31-1 i386
libavahi-common-data 0.6.31-1 i386
libavahi-common3 0.6.31-1 i386
libc6 2.13-33 i386
libcairo2 1.12.2-1 i386
libcomerr2 1.42.2-2 i386
libcups2 1.5.3-1 i386
libdatrie1 0.2.5-3 i386
libdbus-1-3 1.5.12-1 i386
libexpat1 2.1.0-1 i386
libffi5 3.0.10-3 i386
libfontconfig1 2.9.0-6 i386
libfreetype6 2.4.9-1 i386
libgcc1 1:4.7.0-8 i386
libgcrypt11 1.5.0-3 i386
libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 2.26.1-1 i386
libglib2.0-0 2.32.3-1 i386
libgnutls26 2.12.19-1 i386
libgpg-error0 1.10-3 i386
libgssapi-krb5-2 1.10.1+dfsg-1 i386
libgtk2.0-0 2.24.10-1 i386
libice6 2:1.0.8-2 i386
libjasper1 1.900.1-13 i386
libjbig0 2.0-2 i386
libjpeg8 8d-1 i386
libk5crypto3 1.10.1+dfsg-1 i386
libkeyutils1 1.5.5-2 i386
libkrb5-3 1.10.1+dfsg-1 i386
libkrb5support0 1.10.1+dfsg-1 i386
liblcms1 1.19.dfsg-1.1 i386
liblzma5 5.1.1alpha+20110809-3 i386
libmng1 1.0.10-3 i386
libmpg123-0 1.14.2+svn20120622-1 i386
libncurses5 5.9-9 i386
libp11-kit0 0.12-3 i386
libpango1.0-0 1.30.0-1 i386
libpcre3 1:8.30-5 i386
libpixman-1-0 0.24.4-1 i386
libpng12-0 1.2.49-1 i386
libqt4-dbus 4:4.8.2-1 i386
libqt4-network 4:4.8.2-1 i386
libqt4-xml 4:4.8.2-1 i386
libqtcore4 4:4.8.2-1 i386
libqtgui4 4:4.8.2-1 i386
libselinux1 2.1.9-2 i386
libsm6 2:1.2.1-2 i386
libssl1.0.0 1.0.1c-3 i386
libstdc++6 4.7.0-8 i386
libtasn1-3 2.12-1 i386
libthai0 0.1.17-1 i386
libtiff4 3.9.6-5 i386
libtinfo5 5.9-9 i386
libuuid1 2.20.1-5 i386
libwine 1.4.1-1 i386
libwine-bin 1.4.1-1 i386
libwine-cms 1.4.1-1 i386
libx11-6 2:1.4.99.901-2 i386
libxau6 1:1.0.7-1 i386
libxcb-render0 1.8.1-1 i386
libxcb-shm0 1.8.1-1 i386
libxcb1 1.8.1-1 i386
libxcomposite1 1:0.4.3-2 i386
libxcursor1 1:1.1.13-1 i386
libxdamage1 1:1.1.3-2 i386
libxdmcp6 1:1.1.1-1 i386
libxext6 2:1.3.1-2 i386
libxfixes3 1:5.0-4 i386
libxft2 2.2.0-3 i386
libxi6 2:1.6.1-1 i386
libxinerama1 2:1.1.2-1 i386
libxml2 2.8.0+dfsg1-3 i386
libxrandr2 2:1.3.2-2 i386
libxrender1 1:0.9.7-1 i386
libxss1 1:1.2.2-1 i386
libxt6 1:1.1.3-1 i386
libxv1 2:1.0.7-1 i386
skype 4.0.0.7-1 i386
wine-bin 1.4.1-1 i386
zlib1g 1:1.2.7.dfsg-11 i386

Best regards,

Claudius
--
I'm EMOTIONAL now because I have MERCHANDISING CLOUT!!
http://chubig.net telnet nightfall.org 4242
 
Old 06-27-2012, 02:28 PM
Camaleón
 
Default What is the status of multiarch?

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:20:05 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:

> Hello Hans-J.,
>
> "Hans-J. Ullrich" <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
>> On my 64-bit system I am using only very few applications, which are
>> still 32- bit. For example wine, skype, x-plane and a few others.
>
>> So, as my old configuration is still working fine, but I am always
>> intending to improve my system, what is the best (debian)-way for my
>> needs?
>
> It works quite nicely over here on a testing/sid system with the
> following packages:

(...)

In the Spanish mailing list, a user reported a few days ago that he
completely messed up his full wheezy system when he tried to install Wine
in his 64-bits installation. Apparently, the library mix went so bad that
he wanted to completely reinstall wheezy from scratch but this time using
a 32-bits flavour because all the mess.

I suggested him to open a bug report because there should no problems
with multiarch, or at least not the kind of problems that lead the users
to think in a complete OS reinstallation.

To be sincere, I'm a bit reluctant about the multiarch system. I would
prefer playing with it on virtual/testing machines and not yet over
production systems.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jsf5ak$n1m$4@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 06-27-2012, 02:36 PM
Claudius Hubig
 
Default What is the status of multiarch?

Hello Camaleón,

Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:20:05 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
> > It works quite nicely over here on a testing/sid system with the
^^^

> In the Spanish mailing list, a user reported a few days ago that he
> completely messed up his full wheezy system when he tried to install Wine
^^^^^^
> in his 64-bits installation.

I would assume that it is currently rather difficult to have a pure
wheezy system with Multi-Arch, since some packages may still be
trapped in unstable. For example, the multiarchified version of
wine-bin only migrated to testing on 21 June.

> To be sincere, I'm a bit reluctant about the multiarch system. I would
> prefer playing with it on virtual/testing machines and not yet over
> production systems.

Neither wheezy nor sid systems are supposed to be production system
and may break at any time.

Best regards,

Claudius
--
No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.
-- William Blake
http://chubig.net telnet nightfall.org 4242
 
Old 06-27-2012, 02:38 PM
Darac Marjal
 
Default What is the status of multiarch?

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 02:28:36PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:20:05 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>
> > Hello Hans-J.,
> >
> > "Hans-J. Ullrich" <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:
> >> On my 64-bit system I am using only very few applications, which are
> >> still 32- bit. For example wine, skype, x-plane and a few others.
> >
> >> So, as my old configuration is still working fine, but I am always
> >> intending to improve my system, what is the best (debian)-way for my
> >> needs?
> >
> > It works quite nicely over here on a testing/sid system with the
> > following packages:
>
> (...)
>
> In the Spanish mailing list, a user reported a few days ago that he
> completely messed up his full wheezy system when he tried to install Wine
> in his 64-bits installation. Apparently, the library mix went so bad that
> he wanted to completely reinstall wheezy from scratch but this time using
> a 32-bits flavour because all the mess.
>
> I suggested him to open a bug report because there should no problems
> with multiarch, or at least not the kind of problems that lead the users
> to think in a complete OS reinstallation.
>
> To be sincere, I'm a bit reluctant about the multiarch system. I would
> prefer playing with it on virtual/testing machines and not yet over
> production systems.

In my experience, Multiarch is usable, but still a little buggy.

I run sid and update about daily using aptitude. There were a few days
when wine-unstable's packaging was a bit broken, but it seems to have
settled down now. From that, I learned that aptitude's resolver isn't
quite ready for multiarch just yet; it works in the majority of cases,
but sometimes it wants to remove all your i386 packages and you have to
fix (usually hold for a few days) the broken package yourself.

But that's the joy of sid.

To the OP, I would suggest that, if a 32-bit chroot works for you, then
there's probably no need to switch: you get that added security of
running the program in a chroot.

Alternatively, if you want to switch,
http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO should be what you need.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120627143809.GA15575@darac.org.uk">http://lists.debian.org/20120627143809.GA15575@darac.org.uk
 
Old 06-27-2012, 03:22 PM
Camaleón
 
Default What is the status of multiarch?

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:36:34 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:

> Hello Camaleón,
>
> Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:20:05 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>> > It works quite nicely over here on a testing/sid system with the
> ^^^
>
>> In the Spanish mailing list, a user reported a few days ago that he
>> completely messed up his full wheezy system when he tried to install
>> Wine
> ^^^^^^
>> in his 64-bits installation.
>
> I would assume that it is currently rather difficult to have a pure
> wheezy system with Multi-Arch, since some packages may still be trapped
> in unstable. For example, the multiarchified version of wine-bin only
> migrated to testing on 21 June.

Yes, and the problem started when he was going to upgrade his current
working version of wine which I think it came from a native 64 bits
compilation. After the wine migration to multiarch, it seems the package
upgrade went finally fine but he experienced problems with package
managers (apt and aptitude) after the update.

I lack the additional data that should be useful (well, "needed") to
understand what it happened to him, that's why I suggested he goes to the
BTS to analyze in deep the problem with the devs. Wheezy is going to be
freezed in a couple of days and this multiarch problem scares me... a
bit :-)

>> To be sincere, I'm a bit reluctant about the multiarch system. I would
>> prefer playing with it on virtual/testing machines and not yet over
>> production systems.
>
> Neither wheezy nor sid systems are supposed to be production system and
> may break at any time.

Sure, I know, but by "production systems" I can also think in laptop
computers or spare/secondary systems you run every day that, while not
being essential for your daily work, these kind of problems are always a
headache and something that needs to be fixed.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jsf8g4$n1m$8@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 07-01-2012, 04:10 PM
Stephan Seitz
 
Default What is the status of multiarch?

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 02:28:36PM +0000, CamaleĂłn wrote:

In the Spanish mailing list, a user reported a few days ago that he
completely messed up his full wheezy system when he tried to install Wine
in his 64-bits installation. Apparently, the library mix went so bad that
he wanted to completely reinstall wheezy from scratch but this time using
a 32-bits flavour because all the mess.


Well, I don’t have much multiarch stuff installed but it seems that
„aptitude safe-upgrade” is broken if part of the upgrades needs
„full-upgrade” (e.g. the evolution migration from unstable to testing):


minas-ithil:~# env LANG=C aptitude safe-upgrade
Resolving dependencies…
Unable to resolve dependencies for the upgrade: no solution found.
Unable to safely resolve dependencies, try running with –full-resolver

apt-get is still working as expected. But I’m still not sure when you
should use aptitude and when apt-get.


Stephan

--
| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: stse@fsing.rootsland.net |
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 PM.

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