Ken Moffat wrote: > Last time this was discussed, the general view seemed to be that > pure64 was a step far enough. Care to remind me what the advantages > of multilib builds are ?
For me: Flash. Either "standard" flash, or nspluginwrapper-flash -- both require 32-bit libs somewhere. (nspluginwrapper so that its 32-bit binary and the flash library can use them; standard flash so that both the FF binary and the flash library can use them.) There is a 64-bit flash plugin now, of course. This may change the way I think eventually. :-) (Also, for some people, the Java plugin may be a reason, although I am not one of those people. But there may be a 64-bit Java plugin as well now; I'm not sure.) One other reason is the availability of 64-bit XPIs for FF extensions -- last time I looked, there were no prebuilt 64-bit XPIs, only 32-bit. So to run any kind of extension on a 64-bit FF (such as web developer or Venkman, which I use *all* the time), you have to compile it yourself. Finally, mplayer can't use (32-bit) w32codecs, or the realplayer codecs, if it's been compiled for 64-bit. Obviously this means that all your real open-source codecs also need to be compiled for 32-bit (boo!), but there's no good way around this that I know of. (In short: anywhere anyone would be using anything closed-source or easier to obtain as a binary may introduce a need for multilib.)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
