1 |
David M. Fellows posted on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:43:13 -0300 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:40:44 -0500 Barry Schwartz wrote - |
4 |
>> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> skribis: |
5 |
>> > > Is it still necessary to be using multilib? |
6 |
>> > |
7 |
>> > If you're running 100% freedomware, almost certainly not ... |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Firefox binaries are 32-bit. QED. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> More accurately: |
12 |
> 32-bit Firefox binaries are 32 bit 64-bit Firefox binaries are 64 bit |
13 |
> |
14 |
> From firefox-bin-35.0.ebuild (others are similar): |
15 |
> SRC_URI="${SRC_URI} |
16 |
> amd64? ( |
17 |
> ${MOZ_FTP_URI}/${MOZ_PV}/linux-x86_64/en-US/${MOZ_P}.tar.bz2 -> |
18 |
> ${PN}_x86_64-${PV}.tar.bz2 ) |
19 |
> x86? ( |
20 |
> ${MOZ_FTP_URI}/${MOZ_PV}/linux-i686/en-US/${MOZ_P}.tar.bz2 -> |
21 |
> ${PN}_i686-${PV}.tar.bz2 )" |
22 |
> |
23 |
> QED. |
24 |
|
25 |
Yes. |
26 |
|
27 |
Since I always build from source it doesn't directly affect me, but I |
28 |
recall reading an article (FLOSS commentary) sometime last year I |
29 |
believe, that wondered why Mozilla still insisted on directing Linux |
30 |
binary downloaders to the 32-bit binary in this day and age, when the 64- |
31 |
bit binary is available. |
32 |
|
33 |
There's something about support as well; apparently Mozilla supports |
34 |
users running the 32-bit binary to a larger extent than they do the ones |
35 |
running the 64-bit binary, too. Maybe it has to do with the way |
36 |
proprietary plugins (like flash) are supported... obviously not something |
37 |
someone like me who couldn't legally (due to EULA) run such things if |
38 |
they tried would be too concerned about or likely to know the details |
39 |
of... |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
43 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
44 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |