On 2/26/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/26/07, Bayard Coolidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I was referring to was the quagmire of interdependencies in some > packages that make it difficult/impractical to update to new versions > conveniently. Libraries enable code re-use. Now programmers don't have to continuously re-invent the wheel; they can build on the word of others. Shared libraries mean you only have to update one .so to fix a bug or security hole; you don't have to rebuild/update everything that uses it. Sounds like a win, right? But getting everything you need together in one place, all configured the same way at once, often proves an incredibly daunting task. Is there a general solution to this problem?
Install everything. :-D
> Yes, the x64_86 architecture is supposed to be able to run i386/i586/i686 > binaries ... True of the hardware (to some extent), but Linux doesn't seem to work that way. "x86_64" is treated as distinct from "i386". To run an i386 program, you need to satisfy all the dependencies it would normally have, as i386 binaries. For something like a GNOME or KDE program (either of which tend to depend on about half a gig of packages), I can image that's quite... interesting. Anyone know if this is the "only" way to do it? If not, why did Linux go this route? Does x64 Windows do the same thing?
An i386 application needs i386 libraries. An x64 needs x64 libraries. i386 application can run under x64 without a hitch, but don't expect it to load a libgnome compiled for x64. x64 windows has similar issues. -- -- Thomas _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
