Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #1734 > unrolled thread

SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-04 10:07 +0000
    Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-04 05:28 -0500
      Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-04 11:41 +0000
        Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-04 09:32 -0500
          Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-05-04 11:18 -0700
            [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-05 03:34 -0500
              Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-05 13:11 +0000
                Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-05 09:03 -0500
                  Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-05 14:38 +0000
                    Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-05 10:15 -0500
                    Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-07 03:47 -0700
                Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit  only!] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-05-05 14:17 +0000
                  Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit  only!] forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-05 14:40 +0000
                  Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit  only!] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 01:28 +0000
              Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-05-05 06:59 -0700
                Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-05 10:12 -0500
                  Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-05-06 20:34 -0700
                    Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-07 02:33 -0500
                      Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!] Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-05-07 18:03 -0700
          Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-04 19:40 +0000
      Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-05-04 14:26 +0000
        Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-04 09:52 -0500
        Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-05-04 12:09 -0700
    Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-05-04 10:44 -1000
      Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-04 21:18 +0000
    Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-04 22:03 -0700
      Re: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only! forthrightly@no-email.com - 2011-05-05 13:16 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1734 — SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!

Hi Elizabeth,

First of all thank you for making the evaluation editions available, really
an impressive package! I prefer to work in the Linux environment so I
downloaded your Linux package. Unfortunately it is 32 bit only. Many Linux
distributions do support what they call multilib, that is 32 or 64 bit
executables, however several major distributions are 64 bit only. Alas I'm
running a pure 64 bit distro (Slackware) and I can't use your evaluation
package on Linux. I'm using it on Windows in the meantime but I'm posting
here in case you weren't aware of this limitation. The fact you included
such nice doc in the package and sample code etc. is outstanding! This is my
first exposure to FORTH and I'm liking it and your product so far!

Will you be making available a 64 bit Linux version for purchasing at some
point. I am not ready at the moment since I'm just getting started but I
would certainly consider your company if I do decide to continue working
with FORTH and curious to know your plans in the Linux area.

Cheers,

Harry Baker

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1736

forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:

> First of all thank you for making the evaluation editions available,
> really an impressive package! I prefer to work in the Linux
> environment so I downloaded your Linux package. Unfortunately it is
> 32 bit only. Many Linux distributions do support what they call
> multilib, that is 32 or 64 bit executables, however several major
> distributions are 64 bit only. Alas I'm running a pure 64 bit distro
> (Slackware) and I can't use your evaluation package on Linux.

It really is time for you to Upgrade.  :-)

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1738

On 2011-05-04, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
>
>> First of all thank you for making the evaluation editions available,
>> really an impressive package! I prefer to work in the Linux
>> environment so I downloaded your Linux package. Unfortunately it is
>> 32 bit only. Many Linux distributions do support what they call
>> multilib, that is 32 or 64 bit executables, however several major
>> distributions are 64 bit only. Alas I'm running a pure 64 bit distro
>> (Slackware) and I can't use your evaluation package on Linux.
>
> It really is time for you to Upgrade.  :-)
>
> Andrew.

Ah, I see you're new to Linux as well. So you may as well know, once you
Slack you can never go back. Slackware *is* the ultimate upgrade ;-)

Cheers!

Harry the Slacker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1741

forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
> On 2011-05-04, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
>>
>>> First of all thank you for making the evaluation editions available,
>>> really an impressive package! I prefer to work in the Linux
>>> environment so I downloaded your Linux package. Unfortunately it is
>>> 32 bit only. Many Linux distributions do support what they call
>>> multilib, that is 32 or 64 bit executables, however several major
>>> distributions are 64 bit only. Alas I'm running a pure 64 bit distro
>>> (Slackware) and I can't use your evaluation package on Linux.
>>
>> It really is time for you to Upgrade.  :-)

> Ah, I see you're new to Linux as well. So you may as well know, once
> you Slack you can never go back. Slackware *is* the ultimate upgrade
> ;-)

Ahem.  I am just coming up to my fifteenth year at Red Hat.  I may beg
to differ!  :-)

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1746

On May 4, 9:32 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:
> forthrigh...@no-email.com wrote:
> > On 2011-05-04, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> >> forthrigh...@no-email.com wrote:
>
> >>> First of all thank you for making the evaluation editions available,
> >>> really an impressive package! I prefer to work in the Linux
> >>> environment so I downloaded your Linux package. Unfortunately it is
> >>> 32 bit only. Many Linux distributions do support what they call
> >>> multilib, that is 32 or 64 bit executables, however several major
> >>> distributions are 64 bit only. Alas I'm running a pure 64 bit distro
> >>> (Slackware) and I can't use your evaluation package on Linux.
>
> >> It really is time for you to Upgrade.  :-)
> > Ah, I see you're new to Linux as well. So you may as well know, once
> > you Slack you can never go back. Slackware *is* the ultimate upgrade
> > ;-)
>
> Ahem.  I am just coming up to my fifteenth year at Red Hat.  I may beg
> to differ!  :-)
>
> Andrew.

I've mentioned this before in c.l.f. but RHEL6 seems to be far less
friendly to working in a multilib environment than its predecessors
(RHEL5, etc.). The 32-bit compatibility libraries and headers are no
longer installed by default, and there does not appear to be a single
package which would install them, ... a royal pain...

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1772 — [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:

> I've mentioned this before in c.l.f. but RHEL6 seems to be far less
> friendly to working in a multilib environment than its predecessors
> (RHEL5, etc.). The 32-bit compatibility libraries and headers are no
> longer installed by default, and there does not appear to be a single
> package which would install them, ... a royal pain...

Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1781 — Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
> them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>
> Andrew.

Hi Andrew I agree with what you said. In fact I don't want any of the 32 bit
libs on my systems and I've many friends who agree with that. I feel
multilib Linux is just an upgrade mechanism from the days when apps wouldn't
build in 64 bit mode. Now that's mostly over and if you're running newish
hardware there isn't any reason (besides Acroread and Skype) to run 32 bit
at all. It really keeps down the bloat. If you do custom installs like I do,
not installing everything and the kitchen sink, it makes sense not to
install the 32 bit libs on a 64 bit distro. I'm quite happy Pat decided to
build Slackware as either pure 32 or pure 64 as it reduces complexity and
saves quite a bit of room when you have a single lib distro. I suppose
hapless Windows victims who are starting out with Linux and use package
managed distros and don't compile their apps from source don't know the
difference and don't care but for Linux people who've been using it for
years as we have, we often like to control what goes on our systems and what
doesn't. 

Cheers,

Harry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1784 — Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
> On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
>> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
>> them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
>> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
> 
> I agree with what you said. In fact I don't want any of the 32 bit
> libs on my systems and I've many friends who agree with that. I feel
> multilib Linux is just an upgrade mechanism from the days when apps
> wouldn't build in 64 bit mode. Now that's mostly over and if you're
> running newish hardware there isn't any reason (besides Acroread and
> Skype) to run 32 bit at all. It really keeps down the bloat.

Sure, but if you're using this stuff, why do you care?  For SwiftForth
it's not necessary to install much more than 32-bit glibc.  If you
don't want even to do that, I think it's fair to accuse you of being
petty.  Equally, I don't understand why Krishna would want to install
every 32-bit library.  Surely the happy medium is somewhere in-between.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1788 — Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
>> On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>> Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
>>> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
>>> them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
>>> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>> 
>> I agree with what you said. In fact I don't want any of the 32 bit
>> libs on my systems and I've many friends who agree with that. I feel
>> multilib Linux is just an upgrade mechanism from the days when apps
>> wouldn't build in 64 bit mode. Now that's mostly over and if you're
>> running newish hardware there isn't any reason (besides Acroread and
>> Skype) to run 32 bit at all. It really keeps down the bloat.
>
> Sure, but if you're using this stuff, why do you care?

Using what stuff? I abandoned Acroread and Skype when I installed my first
pure 64 a few years ago.

> For SwiftForth it's not necessary to install much more than 32-bit glibc.

First I've heard of it.

> If you don't want even to do that, I think it's fair to accuse you of
> being petty.

You're out of line Andrew. Why is your business what I do?

> Equally, I don't understand why Krishna would want to install every 32-bit
> library.  Surely the happy medium is somewhere in-between. 

For you perhaps it is. Each of us is certainly entitled to run as he likes
without being insulted.

Harry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1792 — Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
> On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
>>>> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
>>>> them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
>>>> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>>> 
>>> I agree with what you said. In fact I don't want any of the 32 bit
>>> libs on my systems and I've many friends who agree with that. I feel
>>> multilib Linux is just an upgrade mechanism from the days when apps
>>> wouldn't build in 64 bit mode. Now that's mostly over and if you're
>>> running newish hardware there isn't any reason (besides Acroread and
>>> Skype) to run 32 bit at all. It really keeps down the bloat.
>>
>> Sure, but if you're using this stuff, why do you care?
> 
> Using what stuff? I abandoned Acroread and Skype when I installed my first
> pure 64 a few years ago.

If you're going to use SwiftForth, why do you care about installing a
couple of 32-bit libraries?  Where's the big deal?  I just don't get
it.

>> For SwiftForth it's not necessary to install much more than 32-bit glibc.
> 
> First I've heard of it.
> 
>> If you don't want even to do that, I think it's fair to accuse you of
>> being petty.
> 
> You're out of line Andrew. Why is your business what I do?

OK.  I give up.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1851 — Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

On May 5, 8:38 am, forthrigh...@no-email.com wrote:
> On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
> > forthrigh...@no-email.com wrote:
> >> On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
> >>> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
> >>> them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
> >>> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>
> >> I agree with what you said. In fact I don't want any of the 32 bit
> >> libs on my systems and I've many friends who agree with that. I feel
> >> multilib Linux is just an upgrade mechanism from the days when apps
> >> wouldn't build in 64 bit mode. Now that's mostly over and if you're
> >> running newish hardware there isn't any reason (besides Acroread and
> >> Skype) to run 32 bit at all. It really keeps down the bloat.
>
> > Sure, but if you're using this stuff, why do you care?
>
> Using what stuff? I abandoned Acroread and Skype when I installed my first
> pure 64 a few years ago.
>
> > For SwiftForth it's not necessary to install much more than 32-bit glibc.
>
> First I've heard of it.
>
> > If you don't want even to do that, I think it's fair to accuse you of
> > being petty.
>
> You're out of line Andrew. Why is your business what I do?
>
> > Equally, I don't understand why Krishna would want to install every 32-bit
> > library.  Surely the happy medium is somewhere in-between.
>
> For you perhaps it is. Each of us is certainly entitled to run as he likes
> without being insulted.
>
> Harry

How do like the comp.lang.forth welcome wagon?

Well, I wrote my novice package because I wanted to help novices. I
don't have any desire to argue with people or insult them. You can use
my novice package, and I will try to help you as much as I can. I
warned you that if you used my novice package, you would be attacked
for doing so. Actually though, you are being attacked anyway --- so
you might as well go ahead and use the novice package --- it is not
like there is anything that you can do that won't result in your
getting attacked.

My software runs under any ANS-Forth system. I don't care if you are
using a 32-bit or 64-bit system, or Slackware or Red Hat, or whatever.
You can even use Windows if you want, and I won't turn my back on you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1786 — Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

forthrightly@no-email.com writes:
>On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
>> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
>> them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
>> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>>
>> Andrew.
>
>Hi Andrew I agree with what you said. In fact I don't want any of the 32 bit
>libs on my systems and I've many friends who agree with that. I feel
>multilib Linux is just an upgrade mechanism from the days when apps wouldn't
>build in 64 bit mode. Now that's mostly over

For SwiftForth (and VFX and BigForth) it isn't; it's a little more
effort to retarget a native-code compiler than to port a normal
application.

Anyway, I wonder whether you wouldn't be happier in the mean time with
Gforth, which does 64 bits on 64-bit platforms and therefore does not
need 32-bit libraries.

>I suppose
>hapless Windows victims who are starting out with Linux and use package
>managed distros and don't compile their apps from source [...]

In particular, you can compile Gforth from source yourself.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2010: http://www.euroforth.org/ef10/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1789 — Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

On 2011-05-05, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
> For SwiftForth (and VFX and BigForth) it isn't; it's a little more
> effort to retarget a native-code compiler than to port a normal
> application.

I understand that and I accepted what Elizabeth said. It's a shame the
hardware manufacturers got away with forcing 64 bit systems on everyone but
they've been the standard for awhile now on desktop and server and it
doesn't seem worth fighting.

> Anyway, I wonder whether you wouldn't be happier in the mean time with
> Gforth, which does 64 bits on 64-bit platforms and therefore does not
> need 32-bit libraries.

Thanks, I'll have a look.

>
>>I suppose
>>hapless Windows victims who are starting out with Linux and use package
>>managed distros and don't compile their apps from source [...]
>
> In particular, you can compile Gforth from source yourself.

That's the right method!

Cheers,

Harry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1815 — Re: [off-topic] 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

In article <2011May5.161723@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>forthrightly@no-email.com writes:
>>On 2011-05-05, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
<SNIP>

>
>For SwiftForth (and VFX and BigForth) it isn't; it's a little more
>effort to retarget a native-code compiler than to port a normal
>application.
>
>Anyway, I wonder whether you wouldn't be happier in the mean time with
>Gforth, which does 64 bits on 64-bit platforms and therefore does not
>need 32-bit libraries.

And then there is lina which does 32 bits on 64-bits platforms without
the need for 32-bit libraries.

There is an advantage to linking against the kernel without using
any shared libraries.

(There is also a 64 bit lina, in beta.)

>
>>I suppose
>>hapless Windows victims who are starting out with Linux and use package
>>managed distros and don't compile their apps from source [...]
>
>In particular, you can compile Gforth from source yourself.

I'm a happy rather than hapless Ubuntu user, using hardly any
application compiled from source. In particular Gforth installs
nicely from the .deb package.

>- anton

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1783 — Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

On May 5, 3:34 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:
> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> > I've mentioned this before in c.l.f. but RHEL6 seems to be far less
> > friendly to working in a multilib environment than its predecessors
> > (RHEL5, etc.). The 32-bit compatibility libraries and headers are no
> > longer installed by default, and there does not appear to be a single
> > package which would install them, ... a royal pain...
>
> Interesting.  I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
> them.  There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>
> Andrew.

I should have bounded the problem a little more. The necessary 32-bit
libraries and headers which I miss are the ones typically required for
development. Red Hat's RHEL distributions used to install these by
default on workstation installations, and they made software
development targeting 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system a lot less of a
headache, prior to RHEL6. Now, I can go and manually figure out which
specific libraries and development header packages are necessary to
build a specific package, and install them individually with yum. But
this is a lot of work. If you know of a clever command to install the
i686 dev libs and headers using "yum", corresponding to the standard
install of 64-bit libs and headers, I'd be grateful if you would post
it. Alternately, I might even be willing to install *all* of the i686
libs and dev headers to avoid the installation of a package, one at a
time.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1791 — Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> On May 5, 3:34?am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>> > I've mentioned this before in c.l.f. but RHEL6 seems to be far less
>> > friendly to working in a multilib environment than its predecessors
>> > (RHEL5, etc.). The 32-bit compatibility libraries and headers are no
>> > longer installed by default, and there does not appear to be a single
>> > package which would install them, ... a royal pain...
>>
>> Interesting. ?I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
>> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
>> them. ?There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
>> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>>
>> Andrew.
> 
> I should have bounded the problem a little more. The necessary 32-bit
> libraries and headers which I miss are the ones typically required for
> development. Red Hat's RHEL distributions used to install these by
> default on workstation installations, and they made software
> development targeting 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system a lot less of a
> headache, prior to RHEL6. Now, I can go and manually figure out which
> specific libraries and development header packages are necessary to
> build a specific package, and install them individually with yum. But
> this is a lot of work. If you know of a clever command to install the
> i686 dev libs and headers using "yum", corresponding to the standard
> install of 64-bit libs and headers, I'd be grateful if you would post
> it.

's trivial, innit?

ls /media/RHEL_6.1\ x86_64\ Disc\ 1/Packages/ | grep devel | grep i686 | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'

gets you a list of packages to feed to yum.  Or, alternatively

rpm -qa | grep -e -devel | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'

for the installed -devel packages.

You might also need to edit the list down a bit, because there may
well be conflicts between the x86_64 and i686 versions, when you have
a choice of one or the other but not both.  But installing all these
packages really is an extreme thing to be doing.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1843 — Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

On May 5, 10:12 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:
> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> > On May 5, 3:34?am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> >> > I've mentioned this before in c.l.f. but RHEL6 seems to be far less
> >> > friendly to working in a multilib environment than its predecessors
> >> > (RHEL5, etc.). The 32-bit compatibility libraries and headers are no
> >> > longer installed by default, and there does not appear to be a single
> >> > package which would install them, ... a royal pain...
>
> >> Interesting. ?I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want all
> >> the 32-bit libraries installed by default -- there's an awful lot of
> >> them. ?There's nothing to stop you doing it yourself at install
> >> time by installing all the *i686* libraries from the DVD using RPM.
>
> >> Andrew.
>
> > I should have bounded the problem a little more. The necessary 32-bit
> > libraries and headers which I miss are the ones typically required for
> > development. Red Hat's RHEL distributions used to install these by
> > default on workstation installations, and they made software
> > development targeting 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system a lot less of a
> > headache, prior to RHEL6. Now, I can go and manually figure out which
> > specific libraries and development header packages are necessary to
> > build a specific package, and install them individually with yum. But
> > this is a lot of work. If you know of a clever command to install the
> > i686 dev libs and headers using "yum", corresponding to the standard
> > install of 64-bit libs and headers, I'd be grateful if you would post
> > it.
>
> 's trivial, innit?
>
> ls /media/RHEL_6.1\ x86_64\ Disc\ 1/Packages/ | grep devel | grep i686 | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'
>
> gets you a list of packages to feed to yum.  Or, alternatively
>
> rpm -qa | grep -e -devel | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'
>
> for the installed -devel packages.
>

The above may be close, but not complete. Your command will grab and
install the headers, but not the libraries themselves. Execution of a
similar command for the libs may do the trick, if the naming
convention is uniform.

> You might also need to edit the list down a bit, because there may
> well be conflicts between the x86_64 and i686 versions, when you have
> a choice of one or the other but not both.  But installing all these
> packages really is an extreme thing to be doing.
>

What's the option to installing these packages? The only option I can
see is to try and figure out all the dependencies before building a
source, and installing those packages manually. This process can be
very time consuming.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1846 — Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> On May 5, 10:12?am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I should have bounded the problem a little more. The necessary 32-bit
>> > libraries and headers which I miss are the ones typically required for
>> > development. Red Hat's RHEL distributions used to install these by
>> > default on workstation installations, and they made software
>> > development targeting 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system a lot less of a
>> > headache, prior to RHEL6. Now, I can go and manually figure out which
>> > specific libraries and development header packages are necessary to
>> > build a specific package, and install them individually with yum. But
>> > this is a lot of work. If you know of a clever command to install the
>> > i686 dev libs and headers using "yum", corresponding to the standard
>> > install of 64-bit libs and headers, I'd be grateful if you would post
>> > it.
>>
>> 's trivial, innit?
>>
>> ls /media/RHEL_6.1\ x86_64\ Disc\ 1/Packages/ | grep devel | grep i686 | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'
>>
>> gets you a list of packages to feed to yum. ?Or, alternatively
>>
>> rpm -qa | grep -e -devel | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'
>>
>> for the installed -devel packages.
> 
> The above may be close, but not complete. Your command will grab and
> install the headers, but not the libraries themselves.

Did you try it?  The -devel packages should have a dependency on the
runtime libs.

>> You might also need to edit the list down a bit, because there may
>> well be conflicts between the x86_64 and i686 versions, when you have
>> a choice of one or the other but not both. ?But installing all these
>> packages really is an extreme thing to be doing.
> 
> What's the option to installing these packages? The only option I can
> see is to try and figure out all the dependencies before building a
> source, and installing those packages manually. This process can be
> very time consuming.

It's never been that much of a big deal for me.  Sure, some package
you're building complains that libBlah is missing, so you install
libBlah.  Still, you have the recipe now.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1858 — Re: 32-bit libs [Was: SwiftForth Linux eval is 32 bit only!]

On May 7, 2:33 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:
> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> > On May 5, 10:12?am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>
> >> > I should have bounded the problem a little more. The necessary 32-bit
> >> > libraries and headers which I miss are the ones typically required for
> >> > development. Red Hat's RHEL distributions used to install these by
> >> > default on workstation installations, and they made software
> >> > development targeting 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system a lot less of a
> >> > headache, prior to RHEL6. Now, I can go and manually figure out which
> >> > specific libraries and development header packages are necessary to
> >> > build a specific package, and install them individually with yum. But
> >> > this is a lot of work. If you know of a clever command to install the
> >> > i686 dev libs and headers using "yum", corresponding to the standard
> >> > install of 64-bit libs and headers, I'd be grateful if you would post
> >> > it.
>
> >> 's trivial, innit?
>
> >> ls /media/RHEL_6.1\ x86_64\ Disc\ 1/Packages/ | grep devel | grep i686 | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'
>
> >> gets you a list of packages to feed to yum. ?Or, alternatively
>
> >> rpm -qa | grep -e -devel | sed 's/-devel.*$/-devel\.i686/'
>
> >> for the installed -devel packages.
>
> > The above may be close, but not complete. Your command will grab and
> > install the headers, but not the libraries themselves.
>
> Did you try it?  The -devel packages should have a dependency on the
> runtime libs.
>

You're right. I'll have to try it and see the result. Right now, I
don't have a freshly installed RHEL6 workstation at hand to try this.
It may be worth the effort to set up one just to try this out, and see
if there are any unanticipated side effects.

> >> You might also need to edit the list down a bit, because there may
> >> well be conflicts between the x86_64 and i686 versions, when you have
> >> a choice of one or the other but not both. ?But installing all these
> >> packages really is an extreme thing to be doing.
>
> > What's the option to installing these packages? The only option I can
> > see is to try and figure out all the dependencies before building a
> > source, and installing those packages manually. This process can be
> > very time consuming.
>
> It's never been that much of a big deal for me.  Sure, some package
> you're building complains that libBlah is missing, so you install
> libBlah.  Still, you have the recipe now.
>
> Andrew.

Ok. Thanks very much.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1750

On 2011-05-04, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> forthrightly@no-email.com wrote:
>> On 2011-05-04, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> It really is time for you to Upgrade.  :-)
>
>> Ah, I see you're new to Linux as well. So you may as well know, once
>> you Slack you can never go back. Slackware *is* the ultimate upgrade
>> ;-)
>
> Ahem.  I am just coming up to my fifteenth year at Red Hat.  I may beg
> to differ!  :-)

Listen, I think it's very big of you to admit it and I personally won't hold
it against you. I'm sure you're a very nice guy with alot going for you.
Work isn't everything. And it's great you're working on a new distro. But
I like the old and proven ones. Don't take it personally :-)

Anyway not one reply has been on topic, thanks to you all for trying to
trash my thread! At least when Elizabeth comes to work today she'll read my
post before all the noise ;)

Cheers!

--
Happy Harry the Slacker
Once you Slack you can never go back
32, buckle my shoe
64, give us some more
Fancy that, no thanks to RedHat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web