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 > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-27-2010, 05:05 PM
Marko Vojinovic
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On Saturday 27 February 2010 05:24:32 pm bruce wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:31 AM, William Case <billlinux@rogers.com> wrote:
> > I am using a *fc12.x86_64 machine. I just now upgraded several packages
> > with yum (yumex) and noticed several i686 packages being upgraded as
> > well. Is this normal? Are some packages I have using i686 when I
> > should have only *.86_64 on my machine? Should I remove ALL i686
> > packages or just leave them alone? I am not overly concerned; just
> > wondering.
>
> as far as i know.. there is no true, only x64 OS from the redhat
> tree... although i think solaris has an actual tryu 64 bit OS...
>
> the 64 bit OS linux from redhat (fedora/centos/rhel/etc.. ) comes with
> a combination if i recall...

No, this is not true in general. The presence of i686 packages on a x86_64
system depends on what you have installed, and is not mandatory.

When F12 came out, I did a clean 64bit install, and had *zero* 32bit packages.
I only tainted this with 32bit dependencies for skype, since there is no 64bit
version of it (yet). Later on I tainted it again when installing dependencies
for Wolfram Mathematica package I use.

If there weren't for closed source software which depends on 32bit libraries,
I'd be having a clean 64bit-only system.

A similar situation is probably for centos/rhel as well (although I am not
sure).

> leave them alone!!!

I agree. If you have 32bit packages on a (cleanly installed) 64bit system,
then they are there probably because something depends on them. Removing them
with yum might give you a hint what app needs them, and could break it if you
insist.

If you have upgraded to F12 from F11 or so, there might be stale 32bit
packages which are not needed anymore (like ndiswrapper, or was it
nspluginwrapper, or...?). In that case it is probably safe to remove them.

Yum is your friend. :-)

Best, :-)
Marko

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-27-2010, 05:05 PM
Frank Cox
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 09:24 -0800, bruce wrote:
> leave them alone!!!

If everything you need/use is 64-bit, you can safely remove the i386
(i686) stuff from your system.

> as far as i know.. there is no true, only x64 OS from the redhat
> tree...

The default installation includes support for i386 applications, but
again, if you don't need that you can remove it.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-27-2010, 05:17 PM
Steve Underwood
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On 02/28/2010 12:31 AM, William Case wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I am using a *fc12.x86_64 machine. I just now upgraded several packages
> with yum (yumex) and noticed several i686 packages being upgraded as
> well. Is this normal? Are some packages I have using i686 when I
> should have only *.86_64 on my machine? Should I remove ALL i686
> packages or just leave them alone? I am not overly concerned; just
> wondering.
>
>
If you list all the 386 and 686 RPMs installed on your machine, you'll
find they are generally libraries. The standard install on x86_64 puts
both the x86_64 and i386/i686 versions of most libraries on the machine,
to maximise compatibility with any 32 bit executables you may install
for yourself. I don't know of anything in the Fedora distribution which
is a 32 bit build for any other reason.

Steve

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-27-2010, 08:21 PM
Suvayu Ali
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On 27/02/10 07:05 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> ...
> version of it (yet). Later on I tainted it again when installing dependencies
> for Wolfram Mathematica package I use.
>
> If there weren't for closed source software which depends on 32bit libraries,
> I'd be having a clean 64bit-only system.

I run F11 x86_64 and there are *zero* 32 bit libraries on my machine. I
recently installed Mathematica from the Wolfram supplied binary for a
friend. I however did not need to install any 32 bit dependencies. Are
you sure about their dependence on 32 bit libraries?

> Best, :-)
> Marko
>

--
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-28-2010, 02:59 AM
Marko Vojinovic
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On Saturday 27 February 2010 09:21:35 pm Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On 27/02/10 07:05 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > ...
> > version of it (yet). Later on I tainted it again when installing
> > dependencies for Wolfram Mathematica package I use.
> >
> > If there weren't for closed source software which depends on 32bit
> > libraries, I'd be having a clean 64bit-only system.
>
> I run F11 x86_64 and there are *zero* 32 bit libraries on my machine. I
> recently installed Mathematica from the Wolfram supplied binary for a
> friend. I however did not need to install any 32 bit dependencies. Are
> you sure about their dependence on 32 bit libraries?

Umm, well, yes, I needed this specifically:

compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-68.i686

This package provides libstdc++.so.5 which is needed by Mma 6.0.3. Maybe in
F11 this library is elsewhere, or you have a different version of Mma which
doesn't depend on it. I remember that Mma installation script refused to
complete until I installed both 64bit and 32bit versions of compat-libstdc++.
First it complained about the missing library, and after I installed the 64bit
version it complained again about the same library still missing. After I
installed 32bit version, the script completed with no problems.

Maybe this can be avoided somehow, but it wasn't obvious to me. Or maybe Mma
was just looking for the library in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64, which
would account as a bug, possibly resolved in version 7? I didn't have enough
time to look into all that seriously, I just kept installing things until it
was happy.

And given that I already had cca 80 or so 32bit packages as dependencies for
skype, one more for Mma doesn't make much difference anyway. ;-)

Best, :-)
Marko

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-28-2010, 03:31 AM
Mail Lists
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On 02/27/2010 10:59 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:

>> I run F11 x86_64 and there are *zero* 32 bit libraries on my machine. I
>> recently installed Mathematica from the Wolfram supplied binary for a
>> friend. I however did not need to install any 32 bit dependencies. Are
>> you sure about their dependence on 32 bit libraries?
>
> Umm, well, yes, I needed this specifically:
>
> compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-68.i686
>
> This package provides libstdc++.so.5 which is needed by Mma 6.0.3. Maybe in


Is there a reason you dont install the 64 bit mathematica version - I
thought it was automatic when you do the install - it detects it and
installs the 64 bit one as appropriate. Perhaps you kept an old install
and upgraded your fedora from 32 to 64 ?

I am running 64 bit no prob ...
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-28-2010, 09:24 AM
Suvayu Ali
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On 28/02/10 04:59 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Saturday 27 February 2010 09:21:35 pm Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> On 27/02/10 07:05 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>>> ...
>>> version of it (yet). Later on I tainted it again when installing
>>> dependencies for Wolfram Mathematica package I use.
>>>
>>> If there weren't for closed source software which depends on 32bit
>>> libraries, I'd be having a clean 64bit-only system.
>>
>> I run F11 x86_64 and there are *zero* 32 bit libraries on my machine. I
>> recently installed Mathematica from the Wolfram supplied binary for a
>> friend. I however did not need to install any 32 bit dependencies. Are
>> you sure about their dependence on 32 bit libraries?
>
> Umm, well, yes, I needed this specifically:
>
> compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-68.i686
>
> This package provides libstdc++.so.5 which is needed by Mma 6.0.3. Maybe in
> ...
>
> Maybe this can be avoided somehow, but it wasn't obvious to me. Or maybe Mma
> was just looking for the library in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64, which
> would account as a bug, possibly resolved in version 7? I didn't have enough

Thats it! I installed Mathematica 7. Maybe they fixed the issue. AFAIK
the installer script supposedly supports both architectures.

> Best, :-)
> Marko

--
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-28-2010, 11:15 AM
Marko Vojinovic
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On Sunday 28 February 2010 04:31:55 am Mail Lists wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 10:59 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> >> I run F11 x86_64 and there are *zero* 32 bit libraries on my machine. I
> >> recently installed Mathematica from the Wolfram supplied binary for a
> >> friend. I however did not need to install any 32 bit dependencies. Are
> >> you sure about their dependence on 32 bit libraries?
> >
> > Umm, well, yes, I needed this specifically:
> > compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-68.i686
> >
> > This package provides libstdc++.so.5 which is needed by Mma 6.0.3. Maybe
> > in
>
> Is there a reason you dont install the 64 bit mathematica version - I
> thought it was automatic when you do the install - it detects it and
> installs the 64 bit one as appropriate. Perhaps you kept an old install
> and upgraded your fedora from 32 to 64 ?

Well it *is* the 64bit install of Mma. And yes, the installer did detect the
arch properly and installed the 64bit version. But for some reason it also
required the above 32bit library as well. It was a fresh install of both F12
and Mma.

I haven't looked into it really, but my guess is that there is a bug in either
Mma 6 or its installer script, so it requires one 32bit piece. Or maybe it was
a genuine requirement, some piece of code there might have still relied on
32bit stuff (the front end, some library, package, or whatever...). Apparently
version 7 doesn't have this problem anymore (but I didn't check this yet).

Best, :-)
Marko




--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-28-2010, 01:41 PM
Mail Lists
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On 02/28/2010 07:15 AM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Apparently
> version 7 doesn't have this problem anymore (but I didn't check this yet).
>

Ah could be .. I'm running 7 too.

g
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 02-28-2010, 08:18 PM
Matthew Saltzman
 
Default Upgrading i686 vs. x86_64. Just checking !

On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 18:05 +0000, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Saturday 27 February 2010 05:24:32 pm bruce wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:31 AM, William Case <billlinux@rogers.com> wrote:
> > > I am using a *fc12.x86_64 machine. I just now upgraded several packages
> > > with yum (yumex) and noticed several i686 packages being upgraded as
> > > well. Is this normal? Are some packages I have using i686 when I
> > > should have only *.86_64 on my machine? Should I remove ALL i686
> > > packages or just leave them alone? I am not overly concerned; just
> > > wondering.
> >
> > as far as i know.. there is no true, only x64 OS from the redhat
> > tree... although i think solaris has an actual tryu 64 bit OS...
> >
> > the 64 bit OS linux from redhat (fedora/centos/rhel/etc.. ) comes with
> > a combination if i recall...
>
> No, this is not true in general. The presence of i686 packages on a x86_64
> system depends on what you have installed, and is not mandatory.
>
> When F12 came out, I did a clean 64bit install, and had *zero* 32bit packages.
> I only tainted this with 32bit dependencies for skype, since there is no 64bit
> version of it (yet). Later on I tainted it again when installing dependencies
> for Wolfram Mathematica package I use.
>
> If there weren't for closed source software which depends on 32bit libraries,
> I'd be having a clean 64bit-only system.

It used to be the case that x86_64 ("multilib") installations installed
many i386 libraries by default. More recent versions (since F10,
maybe?) only install i386 if needed by 32-bit executables.

>
> A similar situation is probably for centos/rhel as well (although I am not
> sure).

I think RHEL5 came out before this change in policy, so it shouldn't be
surprising to find i386 libs on RHEL/CentOS multilib installs. It
should be OK to remove them if they aren't needed to support particular
32-bit executables.

BTW, PPC64 installations *should* have 32-bit libs. On PPC64, you want
32-bit userland binaries whenever possible (i.e., if you don't need
64-bit ints or pointers), because on PPC there are no additional 64-bit
registers to offset the loss in performance due to 64-bit memory
transfers.

>
> > leave them alone!!!
>
> I agree. If you have 32bit packages on a (cleanly installed) 64bit system,
> then they are there probably because something depends on them. Removing them
> with yum might give you a hint what app needs them, and could break it if you
> insist.
>
> If you have upgraded to F12 from F11 or so, there might be stale 32bit
> packages which are not needed anymore (like ndiswrapper, or was it
> nspluginwrapper, or...?). In that case it is probably safe to remove them.
>
> Yum is your friend. :-)
>
> Best, :-)
> Marko
>
>

--
Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:35 AM.

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