Re: [gentoo-amd64] To multilib or Not to multilib!?

[Tonko]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jesús Guerrero <i92guboj@×××××.es> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, January 25, 2009 19:21, Tom wrote:
>>> Hi List!
>>>
>>> After following the thread about the icedtea build on amd64 I found
>>> myself wondering if it would make sense for me to change to
>>> a non-multilib setup.
>>>
>>> So how is the status of that specific profile, how stable, and more
>>> importantly how feature rich can it be?
>>>
>>> Java seems to be getting close to a non issue, but what about flash for
>>> instance? I know there's now a native 64version of adobe's plugin (I'm
>>> using it right now) but I don't know about its dependencies.
>>>
>>> Other things spring to mind, certain codec-packs, multimedia in
>>> general.
>>> And of course wine, virtualization etc.
>>>
>>> So can anybody provide some insight into how things are generally
>>> going in non-multilib-land?!
>>
>> The only difference is that no 32 bits code is pushed into your system.
>> Which in turn means you won't be able to run nor compile 32 bits stuff at
>> all. Wine will plainly not work.
>>
>> mplayer will play about everything. I haven't used win32codecs for years.
>> However I stay away from closed formats, but the few realplayer and window
>> media files that I needed to play could be opened without problems by
>> mplayer without the help of external codecs.
>>
>> The flash alpha plugin for 64 bits works well.
>>
>> You should really check what 32 bits stuff you use. If you need wine you
>> need multilib. Really, there's no advantage into going no-multilib. You
>> only lose versatility and reduce the range of software that you can use.
>>
>> You could get a rough idea about the 32 bits you have installed by using
>> file like this:
>>
>> file {,/usr}/bin/*|grep 32
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jesús Guerrero
>
> Interesting commend. I understand it's rough but I don't see much.
>
> I don't use Wine. I did for a while use Crossover Office which is Wine
> based. Any idea if that requires me to install 32-bit stuff or do they
> provide everything they need? I doubt I'll use it again so it's not
> much of an issue one way for the other.
>
> lightning ~ # file {,/usr}/bin/*|grep 32
> /bin/mbchk:                                      ELF 32-bit LSB
> executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
> /usr/bin/aoss32:                                 Bourne shell script
> text executable
> /usr/bin/gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders32:             ELF 32-bit LSB
> executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1,
> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
> /usr/bin/gtk-query-immodules-2.0-32:             ELF 32-bit LSB
> executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1,
> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
> /usr/bin/lddlibc4:                               ELF 32-bit LSB
> executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9,
> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
> /usr/bin/linux32:                                symbolic link to `setarch'
> /usr/bin/pango-querymodules32:                   ELF 32-bit LSB
> executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1,
> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
> lightning ~ #
>
>
> Were you speaking of the Flash-10.0.21.0_alpha? Is that significantly
> differeng from 10.0.15.3 that I have installed?
>
> [I] net-www/netscape-flash
>     Available versions:  ~9.0.152.0!m!s 10.0.15.3!m!s ~10.0.21.1_alpha!m!s
>     Installed versions:  10.0.15.3!m!s(02:18:34 PM 12/26/2008)
>     Homepage:            http://www.adobe.com/
>     Description:         Adobe Flash Player
>
> If you go no-multilib as I understand it there's no easy way to go
> back, correct?
Only a reinstall will be the fastest way to go back
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>



-- 
Tonko