LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-21-2009, 11:01 AM   #106
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
Not exactly!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I think it was a wise decision to make it multilib, in fact I think it's absolutely necessary as a step in the transition to 64-bit. Currently, not every software is available in 64-bit, one of the major ones is wine, and many people need it and other such programs. Going purelib is a radical decision that should only be made some time from now when 32-bit goes the way of 16-bit and 8-bit that came before.
Slackware64 is not multilib. That's what all the heat is that I'm taking for this. It will allow users to ADD 32-bit compatibility. But it is not immediately provided. But taking your comment (in the absence of that compatibility), everything I've said is justified. Going purelib is exactly what Slackware64 has done!

Shingoshi
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:15 AM   #107
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
The irony in all of this is...

In order for Slackware users to install Slackware64, and still be able to use their existing 32-bit applications, those users still have to rely on Slamd64 to make that possible. That's about as funny as this can get. And it will be even funnier when others speak up and say that each user doesn't have to employ Slamd64 as a solution. Because the fact is, that will require an even greater effort to build those packages, than simply installing the applications from Slamd64. Oh, the majesty of it all!

Shingoshi
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:15 AM   #108
Lufbery
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Distribution: Slackware 64 14.0
Posts: 1,142
Blog Entries: 29

Rep: Reputation: 119Reputation: 119
Hi all,

Being absolutely brand new to the whole 64-bit world of computing, I have a basic question: what are the issues regarding being a pure lib 64-bit system vs. multi-lib?

Put another way, what can and can't one do (or which software won't run) with one versus the other?

Thanks,

-Drew
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:21 AM   #109
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
The meat of the matter...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lufbery View Post
Hi all,

Being absolutely brand new to the whole 64-bit world of computing, I have a basic question: what are the issues regarding being a pure lib 64-bit system vs. multi-lib?

Put another way, what can and can't one do (or which software won't run) with one versus the other?

Thanks,

-Drew
Slackware64 does not have the libraries|packages required to allow any user to run 32-bit packages. You will have to provide them yourself!

Shingoshi

Last edited by Shingoshi; 05-21-2009 at 11:23 AM.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:23 AM   #110
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,092

Rep: Reputation: 222Reputation: 222Reputation: 222
I think it speaks for itself. A pure 64-bit OS means that no 32-bit programs will run, or they might run (well, unlikely actually), because of 32 libs, that are not available. The whole purpose of multi lib is to be able to run certain apps and plugins that are just not available for 64-bit, e.g flash. I am under the impression that Slackware64 is multi lib, even though Pat never really stated what kind of 64-bit Slackware would be, either multi lib or pure 64.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:25 AM   #111
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,092

Rep: Reputation: 222Reputation: 222Reputation: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by shingoshi

Slackware64 does not have the libraries|packages required to allow any user to run 32-bit packages. You will have to provide them yourself!

Shingoshi

Hrm,, please disregard my previous post then. My mistake.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:28 AM   #112
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
The proof will be in the results...

Let me repeat myself. Slackware64 is NOT multilib! It was the one point PatV chose to exclude, as has been repeatedly stated by others. There is NO compatibility between Slackware and Slackware64. You simply cannot install and run Slackware applications on Slackware64 as it is currently released. They are essentially two separate and distinct distributions, sharing nothing in common except the creators.

Shingoshi

Last edited by Shingoshi; 05-21-2009 at 11:36 AM.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:37 AM   #113
pwc101
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,847

Rep: Reputation: 128Reputation: 128
The arguments which abound in this thread remind me of one thing, and one thing only: http://xkcd.com/386/
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:37 AM   #114
rworkman
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama (USA)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shingoshi View Post
Let me repeat myself. Slackware64 is NOT multilib!
Slackware64 is NOT released! It's still in -current stage.

Quote:
It was the one point PatV chose to exclude, as has been repeatedly stated by others. There is NO compatibility between Slackware and Slackware64. You simply cannot run Slackware applications on Slackware64 as it is currently released. They are essentially two separate and distinct distributions, sharing nothing in common except the creators.
You can't run arm binaries on OpenBSD's i386 version, or x86_64 binaries on OpenBSD's armel version, or i386 binaries on OpenBSD's sparc version. They're STILL all OpenBSD. Once again, you're talking about something that you obviously don't understand.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:38 AM   #115
rworkman
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama (USA)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwc101 View Post
The arguments which abound in this thread remind me of one thing, and one thing only: http://xkcd.com/386/
Yes! :-)
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:40 AM   #116
rworkman
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Tuscaloosa, Alabama (USA)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Whether Slackware64 will ever have any 32bit compatibility support is something that I honestly don't know at this point. The *possibility* is certainly there - that much is clear.
If it does happen, it's quite obvious that someone in this thread will take credit for making it happen due to his insight in the matter, but I'll leave that conclusion in the hands of the readers...
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:46 AM   #117
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
Comparing apples and oranges, eh...

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because you know so much more than I do. Is there anything else required other than selecting multilib in the configuration of the toolchain packages to allow the use of 32-bit applications. Just think of all that work those poor folks have had to do to keep using 32-bit applications on a 64-bit system. If they had only been enlightened, and chose not to do so. All that work because of one needless configuration option.

Shingoshi
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:49 AM   #118
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
God help me stop laughing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rworkman View Post
Whether Slackware64 will ever have any 32bit compatibility support is something that I honestly don't know at this point. The *possibility* is certainly there - that much is clear.
If it does happen, it's quite obvious that someone in this thread will take credit for making it happen due to his insight in the matter, but I'll leave that conclusion in the hands of the readers...
ROFLMAO!! That was precious. Great sense of humor on your part. I'll try and restrain myself...

Maybe!!
Shingoshi
 
Old 05-21-2009, 11:58 AM   #119
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
I think I understand now, but then slackware64 is not a standard purelib either, if it were purelib it would have only /usr/lib and not /usr/lib64. Either way I hope that 32-bit compatibility is maintained in some way, otherwise it just doesn't make sense. Either way we'll see what happens, so far it is not released yet.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 12:03 PM   #120
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
Resistance is futile, your individuality will be assimulated...

Well not exactly!!
Let's get real about this. If anyone is going to use Bluewhite64 as an example of a working "Pure 64" distribution, what was the point in reinventing the wheel? Someone more enlightened than I am can explain, "what are the conceptual/philosophical differences between each of them in Slackware64's current form?

What do you know, the Borg have rejects!
Shingoshi
 
  


Reply

Tags
slackware, torrent


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
LXer: Common Public Licence superseded by Eclipse Public Licence LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-18-2009 04:10 AM
slackware current question on the current kernels davimint Slackware 3 06-03-2007 08:39 AM
LXer: A Public Market for Public Music LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-30-2007 08:16 AM
LXer: Public Venture, Public Content LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-22-2006 09:54 PM
To anyone=(To go public or not to go public that is the question...) hotrodowner Linux - General 10 06-25-2002 10:19 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43 PM.

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