| 1 |
On 4 March 2010 09:15, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag 04 März 2010, Stroller wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I'd be really quite happy if I knew that this decision was revocable - |
| 6 |
>> if I could choose "no-multilib" now and change my mind using eselect |
| 7 |
>> later. Presumably I can choose to keep these 32-bit libs for the |
| 8 |
>> moment & blow them away if I find I don't need them - this lib32 is, |
| 9 |
>> after all, in the stage3-amd64-*tar.bz2, so what is the point in |
| 10 |
>> offering me "no-multilib" if I can't do that? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> you can not change on the fly. going from no-multilib to multilib means re- |
| 13 |
> installation. |
| 14 |
> no-multilib is meant for the very brave or people who know exactly that they |
| 15 |
> never need 32bit apps on that box. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Your manpages will take up more space then those few 32bit emul libs that |
| 18 |
> might or not be installed. So there is no downside going multilib. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yep, that was my decision too for a desktop installation. If I were |
| 21 |
building a slim server and checked that all apps required are |
| 22 |
available as 64bit I might have chosen a no-multilib profile. For |
| 23 |
anything else I probably wouldn't. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Mick |
Archives