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 04-01-2008, 03:34 PM
Steve Snyder
 
Default New to x86_64; why so many i386 packages?

I just installed the x86_64 build of Fedora 8. This is my first ever
experience with x86_64 Linux as I haven't had the hardware before now.

I'm amazed at the number of duplicate packages installed. My total of
2096 packages installed includes 417 i386 and 2 i686 packages, all of
which duplicate an existing x86_64 packages.

I understand that some applications don't play nicely when built for
64-bit pointers, but is it really necessary to have all these
compatibility libraries just for those few apps?

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 04:59 PM
Chris Snook
 
Default New to x86_64; why so many i386 packages?

Steve Snyder wrote:
I just installed the x86_64 build of Fedora 8. This is my first ever
experience with x86_64 Linux as I haven't had the hardware before now.

I'm amazed at the number of duplicate packages installed. My total of
2096 packages installed includes 417 i386 and 2 i686 packages, all of
which duplicate an existing x86_64 packages.


I understand that some applications don't play nicely when built for
64-bit pointers, but is it really necessary to have all these
compatibility libraries just for those few apps?




It depends. If you want to use 3rd-party browser plugins that are only
available for 32-bit firefox, you need the plethora of libraries and
their dependencies required to support it. Plenty of other 32-bit apps
can cause this dependency cascade as well, so the installer just gives
you both versions of most libraries.


Personally, I do the following after installing a 64-bit system:

yum remove *.i386
yum install yum-basearchonly

And everything works just fine.

-- Chris

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 05:15 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default New to x86_64; why so many i386 packages?

Steve Snyder wrote:
I just installed the x86_64 build of Fedora 8. This is my first ever
experience with x86_64 Linux as I haven't had the hardware before now.

I'm amazed at the number of duplicate packages installed. My total of
2096 packages installed includes 417 i386 and 2 i686 packages, all of
which duplicate an existing x86_64 packages.


I understand that some applications don't play nicely when built for
64-bit pointers, but is it really necessary to have all these
compatibility libraries just for those few apps?


Well in rawhide leading to Fedora 9, only the "best" arch wins by
default. If you want both you can set the policy to do that in yum.conf.
In Fedora 8, use the base arch plugin.


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 05:31 PM
Globe Trotter
 
Default New to x86_64; why so many i386 packages?

And you can do a yum remove *i?86 to have a thorough-bred. Not clear what that
gets you (or me, because that is exactly what I have done.

Trotter


--- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Steve Snyder wrote:
> > I just installed the x86_64 build of Fedora 8. This is my first ever
> > experience with x86_64 Linux as I haven't had the hardware before now.
> >
> > I'm amazed at the number of duplicate packages installed. My total of
> > 2096 packages installed includes 417 i386 and 2 i686 packages, all of
> > which duplicate an existing x86_64 packages.
> >
> > I understand that some applications don't play nicely when built for
> > 64-bit pointers, but is it really necessary to have all these
> > compatibility libraries just for those few apps?
>
> Well in rawhide leading to Fedora 9, only the "best" arch wins by
> default. If you want both you can set the policy to do that in yum.conf.
> In Fedora 8, use the base arch plugin.
>
> Rahul
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 05:37 PM
"Alan"
 
Default New to x86_64; why so many i386 packages?

> Steve Snyder wrote:
>> I just installed the x86_64 build of Fedora 8. This is my first ever
>> experience with x86_64 Linux as I haven't had the hardware before now.
>>
>> I'm amazed at the number of duplicate packages installed. My total of
>> 2096 packages installed includes 417 i386 and 2 i686 packages, all of
>> which duplicate an existing x86_64 packages.
>>
>> I understand that some applications don't play nicely when built for
>> 64-bit pointers, but is it really necessary to have all these
>> compatibility libraries just for those few apps?
>
> Well in rawhide leading to Fedora 9, only the "best" arch wins by
> default. If you want both you can set the policy to do that in yum.conf.
> In Fedora 8, use the base arch plugin.

Some of those libraries are needed if you run 3rd party packages. (Adobe
Acrobat for instance.) The install is designed not only for what you are
running, but also for what you might want to run.

Unfortunately not every application out there is built for 64bit. Just
the way it is...

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50 AM.

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