LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Poll: Should The Multilib Files Be:
Poll Options
Should The Multilib Files Be:

You must log in and have one post to vote in this poll. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
Results will be available after the polls close.

The nominees are:

Included in the Default Installation?
Offered as an Option during the installation?
Available in /extra (not part of the installation)?
Not included on the CD or DVD?

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-26-2010, 12:02 AM   #76
GrapefruiTgirl
Guru
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Location: underground
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 7,594

Rep: Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550Reputation: 550

And.. If it DOES become an option in the installer, it should be one of those options that defaults to "OFF" or "NO" and/or be deliberately presented to the user for their choice. To clarify: even if a person opts for the FULL automatic Slackware install, they should still be asked if they want multilib or not, before proceeding.


Sasha
 
Old 01-26-2010, 12:31 AM   #77
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current & "True Multilib." PC-BSD.
Posts: 2,271

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrapefruiTgirl View Post
And.. If it DOES become an option in the installer, it should be one of those options that defaults to "OFF" or "NO" and/or be deliberately presented to the user for their choice. To clarify: even if a person opts for the FULL automatic Slackware install, they should still be asked if they want multilib or not, before proceeding...
That would be a fair compromise, IMHO.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 03:38 PM   #78
Petri Kaukasoina
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 242

Rep: Reputation: 86
Quote:
There can still be some special cases where a full 32-bit compiling environment is needed (wine?), but only then the full compat32 support would need to be installed from alien's web site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwizardone View Post
GoogleEarth? Adobe Acroread?
No. You don't use a compiling environment to install and run GoogleEarth or Adobe Reader because they can only be downloaded precompiled, the source code is not available.

You don't need the compiling environment to install wine on Slackware, either, if you just install a precompiled binary package.

32-bit runtime compatibility libraries would be enough to install and run all those 32-bit binaries. No 32-bit gcc, binutils, static libraries, *.so symlinks etc are needed.

Last edited by Petri Kaukasoina; 01-26-2010 at 03:43 PM.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 04:41 PM   #79
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current & "True Multilib." PC-BSD.
Posts: 2,271

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
I had to hunt down and install quite a few 32 bit library files to run the 32 bit version of MPlayer and it was necessary to install the 32 bit Xlib6 library files before Softmaker Office would run.

Last edited by cwizardone; 01-26-2010 at 04:42 PM.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 08:09 PM   #80
forum1793
Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 312

Rep: Reputation: 34
I think slackware-64 comes with mplayer and it works fine. You can also compile your own packages with slackbuilds for 64 bit that work fine.

I agree with others that think the 64 bit should be pure and if added the multilib should be in extra.

If you need 32 bit, use the 32 bit distribution. What gain is there to run 64 bit with multilibs? Is there any performance gain? Does this address a memory issue whereby some 32 bit OS can't see 4GB?
 
Old 01-26-2010, 08:20 PM   #81
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current & "True Multilib." PC-BSD.
Posts: 2,271

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum1793 View Post
I think slackware-64 comes with mplayer and it works fine. You can also compile your own packages with slackbuilds for 64 bit that work fine.
Not if you need a codec for which there still isn't a 64 bit equivalent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forum1793 View Post
I agree with others that think the 64 bit should be pure and if added the multilib should be in extra.

If you need 32 bit, use the 32 bit distribution. What gain is there to run 64 bit with multilibs? Is there any performance gain? Does this address a memory issue whereby some 32 bit OS can't see 4GB?
It is going to be years before the thousands of 32 bit applications are converted, if ever, to 64 bit. Until that time why should it be necessary to run a 32 bit OS for some packages and a 64 bit OS for others?
Even mickeysoft has figured that out and the 64 bit version of windows 7 can run 32 bit applications out of the box.

Last edited by cwizardone; 01-26-2010 at 08:38 PM.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 08:53 PM   #82
animeresistance
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 192

Rep: Reputation: 20
The only thing that i will miss if KDE is dumped away from Slackware, is the K3B tool.
 
Old 01-29-2010, 09:57 AM   #83
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current & "True Multilib." PC-BSD.
Posts: 2,271

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
Bump.
 
Old 01-29-2010, 10:44 AM   #84
zbreaker
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Distribution: Slack -current, #!, vsido
Posts: 228

Rep: Reputation: 29
Another vote to keep 64-bit pure...no inclusion of multilib files.....my 2 centavos
 
Old 01-29-2010, 10:52 AM   #85
damgar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: dallas, tx
Distribution: Slackware - current multilib/gsb Arch
Posts: 1,949
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 201Reputation: 201Reputation: 201
I agree with the spirit of a pure 64, but I'd hazard a guess that 35 to 50 percent of 64 users are also using the multilib packages.. There was a poll about slack13 variations and checking it the poll showed under 30 percent, but I know I for one , have installed multilib since voting and I'm sure a number of other users have as well.

So it seems to me that the question then becomes, "at what point does a common mod get included on the disk if not the stock install?"

I think /extra or an option in setup would be a good compromise, but I agree with GFG's thought that just going ahead with a "full" install should NOT install the multlib. Unless maybe there was a "full pure" "full multilib" option.
 
Old 02-02-2010, 05:55 PM   #86
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current & "True Multilib." PC-BSD.
Posts: 2,271

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by damgar View Post
I think /extra or an option in setup would be a good compromise... Unless maybe there was a "full pure" "full multilib" option.
Excellent idea!
 
Old 02-27-2010, 06:29 AM   #87
oneforall
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2006
Distribution: Blade64/Slackware
Posts: 27

Rep: Reputation: 15
The part here about Pam is old I know but udev is moving to use polkit-1 pam etc . I do see that david will consider it. But its that thing of udev being released with out it patched and not caring if there is 1 or 2 linux platforms(unimportant, this is what it feels like) that don't want to use pam . 1) pam is to me linux taking the same stinking path that m$ took with office 97, IE, directx etc . 2) Pam should be a chioce to use it or use shadow or anything else that might come up. But not this forced crap. 3) it should be made as a package not a required by everything(this is where it fits into the path of IE, directx) etc . 4) Choosing not to use it shouldn't break things , hence the choice of them to STILL work with shadow.

So far the patch is working on my 64bit but xfce flux etc are not and need work a rounds too.
It still has created a mess as bad as pam is, GOOGLE has tons of info on problems with pam. Even looking for patches fixes for compiles over the years I have seen too darn many problems with pam.

I was thinking of emailing Pat to see if he was going to use it . But I see here he's considering it

I liked kde but am completely disappointed in it(I do know they decided because udev has forced them too).
 
Old 03-31-2010, 09:20 PM   #88
gezley
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware-64, Crux-64, NetBSD-64
Posts: 558

Rep: Reputation: 270Reputation: 270Reputation: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by animeresistance View Post
The only thing that i will miss if KDE is dumped away from Slackware, is the K3B tool.
I'd be quite happy to see KDE dropped from Slackware. In my opinion KDE is better suited to the likes of Ubuntu and Mandriva. Fluxbox and XFCE fit the Slackware philosophy better. As you imply, K3b is a jewel in the crown of KDE, but once I found tkDVD to help me with command-line burning, I let go of K3b, and with it KDE, and this computer of mine is the better for it. Indeed, the only GUI program I *need* is Opera; I can't think of anything else I need that can't be done more efficiently and productively at the CLI. Give me the following programs and I'm a happy camper: Mutt, SLRN, elinks, wget, rsync, Postfix, getmail, Dovecot, tmux, urxvt, tex, cdrecord, growisofs, Vim, etc. All of them CLI; all of them unsurpassed in what they do; and all of them able to produce beautiful results. And it's beautiful results that matter; not beautiful interfaces which impede productivity.
 
Old 04-08-2010, 06:14 PM   #89
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
Did you ever get an answer to this question???

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnashley View Post
Eric, do you have a link to the shadow/polkit patch?
I came here looking for information on installing PAM on my Slackware-current platform. I just tried building it with src2pkg, and got compile errors. So I decided to look for a prebuilt package instead. This was the first link from Google. I guess I need to redo the search with linux-pam.slackbuild instead.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
Shingoshi
 
0 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-08-2010, 06:34 PM   #90
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,379

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The question about the polkit-1/shadow patch has nothing to do with installing PAM on your system. Rather, the patch prevents the use of PAM.

If you still want that patch, it is included in the sources for my polkit-1 package.

Eric
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Transcode will not compile in Slackware64-13.0, Multilib TSquaredF Slackware 9 04-07-2010 11:39 PM
[SOLVED] Google Earth Slackware64 Multilib mlangdn Slackware 20 03-19-2010 04:35 AM
[SOLVED] Slackware64 multilib - E17 compiling problem? kukibl Slackware 1 10-08-2009 11:50 AM
slackware64 + multilib or simply install 32-bit? [GOD]Anck Slackware 1 08-31-2009 04:51 AM
CLFS SVN-20080921-x86_64-Multilib Part 10 binutils chokes on install ChrisMP1 Linux From Scratch 0 09-23-2008 09:11 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration