| 1 |
On 8/24/2010 5:46 PM, tparker@××××××××××.net wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 8/24/2010 5:15 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> There is no such package. There are only very few -bin |
| 4 |
>> packages. In |
| 5 |
>> other words, "-bin" is not a magic string you append to |
| 6 |
>> package names. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> As for Wine, the ebuild changed recently to offer both |
| 9 |
>> 64bit as well as |
| 10 |
>> 32bit Wine. I think the binaries are called "wine32" and |
| 11 |
>> "wine64". Two |
| 12 |
>> new USE flags have been introduced to control this: |
| 13 |
>> "win32" and "win64". |
| 14 |
>> By default, both are enabled. If you disable the "win64" |
| 15 |
>> USE flag, |
| 16 |
>> you'll get only the 32bit Wine. And vice versa of course. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Thank you, that helps a great deal. Is it correct that if a |
| 19 |
> program does have a -bin package I can emerge that and have |
| 20 |
> it work as a 32 bit program in the 64 bit environment (and |
| 21 |
> the same with wine32)? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Generally speaking, yes -- if everything is set up properly |
| 24 |
with the package in portage, that will be true. However, in |
| 25 |
many of those cases there's also a source package that |
| 26 |
builds and runs equally well on 64-bit OS's, so using the |
| 27 |
-bin package should be done only if there's a specific |
| 28 |
reason to. Currently, for example, many people are using |
| 29 |
the firefox-bin or chromium-bin packages because of issues |
| 30 |
with Adobe Flash Player. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
--Mike |
Archives