Re: Deleting i386 packages

Please don't top post on the debian-users mailing list On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:33:52PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > Hey Chris, > > It doesn't matter if some would like them to just vanish. > They do commit to the client but the scale of things might not be understood > by all in the same

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On 30/09/2015 14:53, Chris Bannister wrote: Please don't top post on the debian-users mailing list It was unintentional. My main point stays. An admin and IT manager needs to evaluate their goals and decide on the right approach. Sometimes it can be frustrating to navigate between the drops

Re: Deleting i386 packages

Hey Chris, It doesn't matter if some would like them to just vanish. They do commit to the client but the scale of things might not be understood by all in the same level\manner. MS doesn't and cannot commit to software maintenance in certain levels. I do not know how much money they have and

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On 23/09/15 00:14, Reco wrote: > $ dpkg -I teamviewer_10.0.46203_amd64.deb | grep Depe > Depends: bash (>= 3.0), libc6-i386 (>= 2.4), lib32asound2, lib32z1, > libxext6, ia32-libs > > A fine example of non-multiarch package which declared amd64 arch while > providing i386 binaries only. It was

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:21:12PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > Hey Martin, > > I was reading your note and it is not the reality or something that should > be done but rather another side to consider when working with software > vendors. > I do agree that there is a benefit when the sources

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On 27/09/15 08:06, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: Like any other job the programmers need money and software authors are not obligated to publish their work to be available to all humanity(or at-least these parts of humanity that are connected to the WWW). The above is something I think is right and

Re: Deleting i386 packages

Hey Reco, I must admit that this is not the first time I was confused as a trolling creature. And responding to the above mentioned arguments\ideas\thoughts. I know some might disagree with me about my point of view and I do not have any obligations to change my mind but I can clarify my

Re: Deleting i386 packages

Hey Martin, I was reading your note and it is not the reality or something that should be done but rather another side to consider when working with software vendors. I do agree that there is a benefit when the sources are open but companies like MS(just as an example) do not just vanish. The

Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again (was: Deleting i386 packages)

Hi. On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:06:37 +0300 Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > Hey Reco, > > I must admit that this is not the first time I was confused as a > trolling creature. For the record - I did not 'confuse' you as a troll and did not call you one. I could not care less

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 09:54:05PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:24:45PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:36:32AM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > > > I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side. > > > Proprietary

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:24:45PM +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:36:32AM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > > I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side. > > Proprietary software usage is normal in all cases. > > No surprise in such position

Re: Deleting i386 packages

Hi. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:36:32AM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: > I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side. > Proprietary software usage is normal in all cases. No surprise in such position here, since apparently you're using Windows. And you came to the

Re: Deleting i386 packages

I will not argue since truth can be seen from more then one side. Proprietary software usage is normal in all cases. It is as dangerous as the usage of open source software. It might limit but it gives something that not all open source software can give. It doesn't limit freedom but just a mere

Re: Deleting i386 packages

Hi. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large > number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is > there a good way to simply tell a package manager that I want everything >

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On 09/22/2015 02:49 PM, Reco wrote: Hi. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is there a good way to simply tell a package

Re: Deleting i386 packages

Hi. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 09:06:47PM +0800, mudongliang wrote: > Or some of 64bit software will not work if you don't check. > For example , skype ,teamviewer all need i386 packages. > > 1) Users of non-free software (especially users of non-free wine-embedded >

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:43:48PM +0800, mudongliang wrote: > > > On 09/22/2015 02:49 PM, Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > >On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >>For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large > >>number of i386 packages on them

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On 09/22/2015 08:38 PM, Reco wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:43:48PM +0800, mudongliang wrote: On 09/22/2015 02:49 PM, Reco wrote: Hi. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large number of

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:18:01PM -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large > number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is > there a good way to simply tell a package manager that I want everything > involving that

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On 22/09/15 13:38, Reco wrote: 1) Users of non-free software (especially users of non-free wine-embedded software) should suffer anyway. It speaks ill of you that you cite this as a reason for not offering cautionary advice to users of proprietary software. If such people *do* in fact

Re: Deleting i386 packages

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:25:20PM +0100, Martin Read wrote: > On 22/09/15 13:38, Reco wrote: > >1) Users of non-free software (especially users of non-free wine-embedded > >software) should suffer anyway. > > It speaks ill of you that you cite this as a reason for not offering > cautionary

Deleting i386 packages

For historical reasons, my x86-64 architecture computers have a large number of i386 packages on them that I'd just as soon be rid of. is there a good way to simply tell a package manager that I want everything involving that architecture deleted? The best answer I've found on my own has been to

Re: Deleting i386 packages

You should probably avoid doing so. We are using systems based on amd64 (64 bit) architecture, still there are many applications that yet depend on the i386 (32 bit) model. 64 bit processors allow 32 apps to run, which lets them function properly on modern computers too. i386 packages should not