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

[Mark Knecht]

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?

Thanks,
Mark