I trying Slackware64, congratulatios for the great leap.

My problem is that I have some programs installed in the /home partition, but very few programs could execute. For example open office compiled for Slamd64 or compiled with Slackware not could execute. Other as videogames, Quake 3/4 UT2004, Doom3 etc. also not execute.
The label ever is: program-bin "Not such file or directory".

I can do ?

thanks

You can not run 32bit programs in Slackware64. I think this is what you are running into.

Eric

Follow the instructions listed above this (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...68#post3558368) post, and you will have no further problems running 32-bit applications.

Shingoshi

If anything, I would vote against installing Bluewhite64's 32bit compatibility packages on Slackware64.
Try the ones Fred Emmott (from slamd64) created for Slackware64. Fred's 32bit packages were compiled on Slackware64.

See ftp://anorien.warwick.ac.uk/slamd64/...are64-current/

Eric

ok thanks I had to guess, Slackware64 is pure 64 bits and does not 32 bits library yet.

The major difference between these two sets of packages, is where they are placed on disk.
Bluewhite64: /lib32 & /usr/lib32
Slackware64: /lib & /usr/lib

The difference is the absolute security that nothing can ever overwrite your 32-bit libraries. NEVER!! This is important if you ever compile your own packages, and for any reason the suffix for lib64 is not explicitly stated. If that ever happens, you will be out of luck. It's just like having your 32-bit libraries in a sandbox.

Shingoshi

I don't understand your logic here. For example, let's say I'm building a package for imlib2. When I'm done, I can just do "less imlib2*tgz" and check the permissions and directories. Luck doesn't have a thing to do with it.

If I do put something in the wrong place, how does having even more stuff in a different wrong place help me? Do you mean that it's easier to find because what should be there isn't? And that's LESS confusing?

If by "sandbox" you mean "a totally non-standard directory that breaks compliance with the FHS", then I agree with you.

Anyone can always be comforted by their compliance with the FHS, when they find themselves with a 32-bit package that can't find libraries that no longer exist on their system. But what I stated earlier can always apply to the building of new 32-bit packages. Putting them in /lib32 and /usr/lib32 will serve as a preventative measure against building packages of the same name in 64-bit.

Me personally, I like certainty. But then again, I would also promote the ia32- as a prefix for all 32-bit package names. That way, they're always grouped together when looking for them (in a package manager for instance). But most importantly, I hope everyone is always happy with the solution they choose.

Just be happy with your choice.
Shingoshi

I installed the anorien.warwick.ac.uk 32 bits library, but applications return an error of "Segmentation fault"

May be some advance with the Bluewhite64 32 bits librarys ?

thanks

There are times when you must do things others don't approve of, when you want to get results they aren't willing to admit are possible. I have had no problems following my own particular solution. I have had no errors. Unlike the solution provided by anyone else, Bluewhite64's has been around and proven stable.

Follow these instructions, and you won't have a problem. It's as simple as that.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...68#post3558368
And here are the packages you need. Get them and be happy!
http://mirror.inode.at/data/bluewhit...a32-emulation/

Shingoshi

Many many thanks, your solution really work, now I can execute my binaries without problems.

Greatings

Thank you for the acknowledgment. I hope that this will be helpful to others as well. Pass the word around. There is a working solution. Even if it's not the one many would expect or desire.

Shingoshi