On 2009-07-20 09:19, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-07-20 14:52 +0200, David Fox wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
But why the opposite, like lib64bz2-1.0 in the i386 repository?
Maybe just for the converse reason, running amd64 binaries on a mostly
I understand why there's a linux-image-2.6.30-1-amd64, because you
can run with a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland (which is what I
currently do...), and I can understand that there'd be 32-bit
libraries in the amd64 repos.
But why the opposite, like lib64bz2-1.0 in the i386 repository?
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
But why the opposite, like lib64bz2-1.0 in the i386 repository?
Maybe just for the converse reason, running amd64 binaries on a mostly
32-bit userland setup. I guess this would work with a 32-bit kernel.
For much the same
On 2009-07-20 14:52 +0200, David Fox wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
But why the opposite, like lib64bz2-1.0 in the i386 repository?
Maybe just for the converse reason, running amd64 binaries on a mostly
32-bit userland setup. I guess this
On 2009-07-20 09:19, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2009-07-20 14:52 +0200, David Fox wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Ron Johnsonron.l.john...@cox.net wrote:
But why the opposite, like lib64bz2-1.0 in the i386 repository?
Maybe just for the converse reason, running amd64 binaries on a mostly
5 matches
Mail list logo
