On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Mark Knecht <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jesús Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sun, January 25, 2009 19:21, Tom wrote: >>> Hi List! >>> >>> After following the thread about the icedtea build on amd64 I found >>> myself wondering if it would make sense for me to change to >>> a non-multilib setup. >>> >>> So how is the status of that specific profile, how stable, and more >>> importantly how feature rich can it be? >>> >>> Java seems to be getting close to a non issue, but what about flash for >>> instance? I know there's now a native 64version of adobe's plugin (I'm >>> using it right now) but I don't know about its dependencies. >>> >>> Other things spring to mind, certain codec-packs, multimedia in >>> general. >>> And of course wine, virtualization etc. >>> >>> So can anybody provide some insight into how things are generally >>> going in non-multilib-land?! >> >> The only difference is that no 32 bits code is pushed into your system. >> Which in turn means you won't be able to run nor compile 32 bits stuff at >> all. Wine will plainly not work. >> >> mplayer will play about everything. I haven't used win32codecs for years. >> However I stay away from closed formats, but the few realplayer and window >> media files that I needed to play could be opened without problems by >> mplayer without the help of external codecs. >> >> The flash alpha plugin for 64 bits works well. >> >> You should really check what 32 bits stuff you use. If you need wine you >> need multilib. Really, there's no advantage into going no-multilib. You >> only lose versatility and reduce the range of software that you can use. >> >> You could get a rough idea about the 32 bits you have installed by using >> file like this: >> >> file {,/usr}/bin/*|grep 32 >> >> >> -- >> Jesús Guerrero > > Interesting commend. I understand it's rough but I don't see much. > > I don't use Wine. I did for a while use Crossover Office which is Wine > based. Any idea if that requires me to install 32-bit stuff or do they > provide everything they need? I doubt I'll use it again so it's not > much of an issue one way for the other. > > lightning ~ # file {,/usr}/bin/*|grep 32 > /bin/mbchk: ELF 32-bit LSB > executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, > dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped > /usr/bin/aoss32: Bourne shell script > text executable > /usr/bin/gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders32: ELF 32-bit LSB > executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1, > dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped > /usr/bin/gtk-query-immodules-2.0-32: ELF 32-bit LSB > executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1, > dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped > /usr/bin/lddlibc4: ELF 32-bit LSB > executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, > dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped > /usr/bin/linux32: symbolic link to `setarch' > /usr/bin/pango-querymodules32: ELF 32-bit LSB > executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4.1, > dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped > lightning ~ # > > > Were you speaking of the Flash-10.0.21.0_alpha? Is that significantly > differeng from 10.0.15.3 that I have installed? > > [I] net-www/netscape-flash > Available versions: ~9.0.152.0!m!s 10.0.15.3!m!s ~10.0.21.1_alpha!m!s > Installed versions: 10.0.15.3!m!s(02:18:34 PM 12/26/2008) > Homepage: http://www.adobe.com/ > Description: Adobe Flash Player > > If you go no-multilib as I understand it there's no easy way to go > back, correct? Only a reinstall will be the fastest way to go back > > Thanks, > Mark > >
-- Tonko
