1 |
Bertrand Jacquin posted |
2 |
<43872d370603280717w2b6ccbd9l9dae6e21a9a927d2@××××××××××.com>, excerpted |
3 |
below, on Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:17:27 +0200: |
4 |
|
5 |
> How could you compile mplayer or firefox in your 64 bits environnement |
6 |
> to generate 32 bits binary ? I have multilib activated and I can't |
7 |
> build mplayer with CFLAGS="-m32". |
8 |
> |
9 |
> It is needing something else ? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I don't want too to have and maintain a 32 bit chroot. |
12 |
|
13 |
There /are/ the 32-bit precompiled packages for those in the tree, |
14 |
firefox-bin and mplayer-bin, if you want to merge them. Note that these |
15 |
use different executable names so you can even have both your regular |
16 |
64-bit and the 32-bit-binary versions merged side by side. |
17 |
|
18 |
As for why you can't seem to compile the 32-bit binaries, it's very |
19 |
possibly because you are missing certain of the libraries and other |
20 |
dependencies, or more likely, the 32-bit headers for them necessary for |
21 |
compilation. Naturally, you could track all this stuff manually, but |
22 |
that's what portage is for -- only it can track only one bitness at a |
23 |
time. Thus, the idea of a 32-bit chroot, complete with its own instance |
24 |
of portage, which can track all the 32-bit dependencies necessary to |
25 |
compile in 32-bit what you really want, firefox and mplayer, in this case. |
26 |
Sure, it's /possible/ to track all those dependencies manually, but it's |
27 |
/far/ easier to run a chroot for the purpose and let portage do what |
28 |
portage does well -- automate all that stuff for you so you don't have to |
29 |
worry about it. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
33 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
34 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
35 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |