On Saturday 26 May 2007, Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about '[gentoo-user] multilib vs. no-multilib in 64-bit environment': > I think I'll attempt to set up one of my EM64T boxes in 64-bit Gentoo > environment, so I've been reading some docs about it.
*cough*AMD64*cough* > I understand > that the multilib profile allows for having 32-bit libraries and being > able to run 32-bit binaries, Being able to run 32-bit binaries requires two things. x86_32 support in the kernel (which (no-)multilib doesn't affect) and all the libraries for the binaries being available in a 32-bit version, particularly ld.so and libc.so.6; multilib the multilib profile causes (not "allows" -- if you use multilib profile it is not optional) the most fundamental 32-bit libraries (like those required for *building* a 32-bit library) to be installed. > whereas no-multilib restricts you to a > purely 64-bit environment with no 32-bit compatibility. That's true as far as libraries go. (A fully statically linked 32-bit executable could still run if the kernel has support for x86_32.) > What would be some of the reasons for setting up a no-multilib > profile? Saves disk space and compilation time. > Perhaps for a computational workstation that doesnt need any > fancy toys or a development system? Very few F(L)OSS programs are unavailable in 64-bit land, so if your computer lives in the "Free (Software) world" you won't have problems no matter what you use the computer for. If you need/want proprietary binaries, multilib is the only way to go. > Are any of you here running on a > no-multilib 64-bit profile? Not I. I'm still leaning on my wine/cedega crutch for some things. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
