tvn <[email protected]> writes: > On Monday, July 23, 2012 11:53:39 AM UTC-4, Keshav Kini wrote: > > tvn <[email protected]> writes: > > That's what I mean: my Debian OS is *NOT* 64 bit -- uname -a > *DOES > > NOT* tell you about the OS but rather the capability of the > machine > > hardware. If the build script makes the same assumption and > attempts > > to build 64 bit packages based on uname's out then this should > be a > > bug -- as shown in my situation. > > `uname` output tells you about the target architecture the kernel > was > built for, not the capability of the machine hardware. It looks > to me > like you're running a 32-bit userland on top of a 64-bit kernel > (from > what little I know of such things). That is an unusual situation > afaik > and I wouldn't be surprised if Sage is buggy on such systems... > > > > I don't think my situation is unusual as many people run 32 bit OS on > 64 capable hardware because many legacy software are 32 bit. In > fact, I didn't even have to do any special configuration: just grab > the 32 bit Debian installation and install it directly on this > machine. Moreover, I think the "recommended" Ubuntu version on its > download page is 32 bit - regardless if your machine is capable of 64 > bit or not.
Certainly it's not unusual to run a 32-bit OS on x86-64 hardware. I think most people also run their 32-bit OS with a 32-bit kernel, though. It's *really* strange to me that the standard 32-bit Debian installation image would come with a 64-bit kernel, since that would be physically impossible to run on a real 32-bit system, and the standard 32-bit Debian installation image should obviously be able to run on a real 32-bit system. -Keshav ---- Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
