On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:25:48PM -0700, Steve Franks wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > IIRC, all the libraries that WINE depends on also need to be available > > in 32 bits. While not impossible nobody has spent any affort on this > > because it's easier just to install i386. > > > > Roland > > > > I suppose it's naive to think that some tool like portupgrade could be > bent to build all the depends with -m32 as well?
This has been discussed earlier on the list. To summarize (and correct me if I'm wrong, people) It should be possible to modify the ports infrastructure to support this, but nobody has volunteered to spend the effort to make it so, because it's much easier to install the i386 version. Very few people actually _need_ to run amd64 (because they regularly run out of address space on i386), especially on the desktop. > I guess you'd wind > up with a bunch of things you didn't want as 32-bit (i.e. XOrg?) being > re-installed as 32bit, right? Not completely. The X protocol works on 32 and 64 bit machines. But you would need a 32-bit Xlib (talking to a 64-bit X server). You can probably see that this would have significant consequences for the ports infrastructure; having to record both 32- and 64-bit packages, and the need to know which can work together. > I don't suppose there's any infrastructure for simultaneously > installing two versions of a port Not at the moment, I think. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
pgp5812AsthJy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
