On 8/2/05, Paul Howarth wrote: > I think you *can* install i386 and x86_64 versions of just about > anything at the same time, as long as they're the exact same > epoch-version-release (not that it's a good idea). You're certainly I really doubt it. Remember, my comments were *only* about programs, not libraries, and about using RPM (or yum) to install. You can install 32-bit and 64-bit libraries at the same time, and they need not be the same version. But most of the time programs will have something that they put in /usr/bin so that they are in the PATH, which would conflict between the two versions. For instance, look at when the OP tried to install mozilla.i386. It told him that the file /usr/bin/mozilla conflicted. The man pages also conflicted, as happened earlier with the Perl package I mentioned in my last email. Of course, these are only problems with using RPM packages. You could certainly get a 32-bit version in just a tar ball form and install it somewhere else. And there is no reason to have the same version as a 64-bit version long as you have all the right 32-bit libs installed. > right about there not having been a mozilla.i386 package in the FC4 to > start with, which begs the question: how did the OP end up with > mozilla.i386 on his system? But the OP didn't have *mozilla.i386* installed. He had some 32-bit mozilla libraries which are needed by some 32-bit programs. There is a big difference between the libraries and the actual program. Libraries have two different (sets of) directories: /lib and /lib64 (same pair under /usr as well). 64-bit libs go in /lib64 and 32-bit in /lib since Fedora is a multi-lib distro. > I'll go off and retract that bug report now... > > Paul. I almost said something earlier, but I've been busy and thought that someone else would say something. Jonathan
