Hi, This week I became the proud owner of an amd 64 (3200+) powered machine. So as a 1st I installed SuSE 9.0 with apt4rpm To be able to play dvd's, can I use packman and packman-i686? What if a package is both available as a amd64 and none-amd64 version? Will apt solve this or just take the latest 32bit stuff, even when 64bit is available? Maybe there is a non apt resource for these gooedies? BB, Arjen
Arjen Runsink
Hi,
This week I became the proud owner of an amd 64 (3200+) powered machine.
So as a 1st I installed SuSE 9.0 with apt4rpm
To be able to play dvd's, can I use packman and packman-i686? What if a
Yes, in general.
package is both available as a amd64 and none-amd64 version? Will apt solve this or just take the latest 32bit stuff, even when 64bit is available?
I don't know what apt would do. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On April 10, 2004 01:41 am, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Arjen Runsink
writes: Hi,
This week I became the proud owner of an amd 64 (3200+) powered machine.
So as a 1st I installed SuSE 9.0 with apt4rpm
To be able to play dvd's, can I use packman and packman-i686? What if a
Yes, in general.
If you mean mplayer, you probably should have a 32bit version anyhow.
package is both available as a amd64 and none-amd64 version? Will apt solve this or just take the latest 32bit stuff, even when 64bit is available?
I don't know what apt would do.
I think apt would take the latest 32bit package. Btw, I find it interesting that 32bit apt on an amd64 machine seems to take only 32bit packages...
Hi, On Saturday 10 April 2004 20:53, Sergei Klink wrote:
On April 10, 2004 01:41 am, Andreas Jaeger wrote: I think apt would take the latest 32bit package. Btw, I find it interesting that 32bit apt on an amd64 machine seems to take only 32bit packages...
Well apt itself is also available as a 64bit package. And which packets it takes depends on the repositories you configure. But indeed I do think too that it will take the latest package whatever machine type it is. Btw don't install the glibc update that is in the standard apt sources repositories. It trashes apps so bad my rpm db got trashed BB, Arjen
On April 11, 2004 01:25 am, Arjen Runsink wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday 10 April 2004 20:53, Sergei Klink wrote:
On April 10, 2004 01:41 am, Andreas Jaeger wrote: I think apt would take the latest 32bit package. Btw, I find it interesting that 32bit apt on an amd64 machine seems to take only 32bit packages...
Well apt itself is also available as a 64bit package.
Well when I started using it it wasn't, though recompiling the source rpm went fine(with the exception of it trying to link explicitly to /usr/lib/libbz2.so or something, don't remember). Then I even found aptitude(for mandrake, I think) with all the appropriate rpm patches, recompiled it too, and haven't been happier(packaging-wise ;) ever since :) (synaptic is good, but I still like aptitude)
But indeed I do think too that it will take the latest package whatever machine type it is.
Btw don't install the glibc update that is in the standard apt sources repositories. It trashes apps so bad my rpm db got trashed
I don't know, my apt doesn't even want to install it, it breaks lots of dependencies...I've no idea why it's there. P.S. Anyone knows why the package descriptions are so short(or none at all) for amd64 SuSE? Certainly the maintainers could have put at least a short sentence stating the purpose of the package...
Sergei Klink
P.S. Anyone knows why the package descriptions are so short(or none at all) for amd64 SuSE? Certainly the maintainers could have put at least a short sentence stating the purpose of the package...
We do and have it. Can you give me one or two examples what's missing? Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Hi, On Monday 12 April 2004 06:58, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Sergei Klink
writes: P.S. Anyone knows why the package descriptions are so short(or none at all) for amd64 SuSE? Certainly the maintainers could have put at least a short sentence stating the purpose of the package...
We do and have it. Can you give me one or two examples what's missing?
Hi, I too have observed this. Might this be the case when doing an install of the ftp-version of suse (for amd64)? Oh well, I preordered 9.1 with my preferred postal order shop so.. problem will solve itself. BB, Arjen
On April 11, 2004 10:58 pm, you wrote:
Sergei Klink
writes: P.S. Anyone knows why the package descriptions are so short(or none at all) for amd64 SuSE? Certainly the maintainers could have put at least a short sentence stating the purpose of the package...
We do and have it. Can you give me one or two examples what's missing?
When I was doing the ftp install, there were plenty(e.g. mesa, mesaglut, openmotif - I think those were the ones that came with it, and it seems to be the same with every other minor library), then I updated some packages with apt, and noticed the same trend there...Is it just someone really lazy or me having something wrong with my config?? I think I've noticed a couple of packages like that from the apt repositories for i386, but all of the original SuSE's rpms seem to be alright for i386...
Sergei Klink
On April 11, 2004 10:58 pm, you wrote:
Sergei Klink
writes: P.S. Anyone knows why the package descriptions are so short(or none at all) for amd64 SuSE? Certainly the maintainers could have put at least a short sentence stating the purpose of the package...
We do and have it. Can you give me one or two examples what's missing?
When I was doing the ftp install, there were plenty(e.g. mesa, mesaglut, openmotif - I think those were the ones that came with it, and it seems to be the same with every other minor library), then I updated some packages with apt, and noticed the same trend there...Is it just someone really lazy or me having something wrong with my config?? I think I've noticed a couple of packages like that from the apt repositories for i386, but all of the original SuSE's rpms seem to be alright for i386...
So, you only see this with apt? That would mean there's a bug in apt... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On April 12, 2004 10:35 pm, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Sergei Klink
writes: On April 11, 2004 10:58 pm, you wrote:
Sergei Klink
writes: P.S. Anyone knows why the package descriptions are so short(or none at all) for amd64 SuSE? Certainly the maintainers could have put at least a short sentence stating the purpose of the package...
We do and have it. Can you give me one or two examples what's missing?
When I was doing the ftp install, there were plenty(e.g. mesa, mesaglut, openmotif - I think those were the ones that came with it, and it seems to be the same with every other minor library), then I updated some packages with apt, and noticed the same trend there...Is it just someone really lazy or me having something wrong with my config?? I think I've noticed a couple of packages like that from the apt repositories for i386, but all of the original SuSE's rpms seem to be alright for i386...
So, you only see this with apt? That would mean there's a bug in apt...
No, no, no - that's what I'm trying to tell, not very effectively, apparently :) There's nothing wrong with standard SuSE's i386 packages. But on x86_64 this occurred with YaST, _before_ I tried apt. I've just checked with rpm -q --info - there's nothing in the description field of the packages mentioned above.
Sergei Klink
No, no, no - that's what I'm trying to tell, not very effectively, apparently :) There's nothing wrong with standard SuSE's i386 packages. But on x86_64 this occurred with YaST, _before_ I tried apt. I've just checked with rpm -q --info - there's nothing in the description field of the packages mentioned above.
That's strange indeed. My own system was done with the 9.0/AMD64 DVD and I see those... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On April 12, 2004 11:30 pm, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Sergei Klink
writes: No, no, no - that's what I'm trying to tell, not very effectively, apparently :) There's nothing wrong with standard SuSE's i386 packages. But on x86_64 this occurred with YaST, _before_ I tried apt. I've just checked with rpm -q --info - there's nothing in the description field of the packages mentioned above.
That's strange indeed. My own system was done with the 9.0/AMD64 DVD and I see those...
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you see for the description field in those packages?
participants (3)
-
Andreas Jaeger
-
Arjen Runsink
-
Sergei Klink