On 8/4/05, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 21:00 -0500, Jonathan Berry wrote: [snip] > > different, I don't remember, I think it was back in FC2. Some > > experimentation has shown that I was (with some trouble) able to > > install the 32-bit version without explicitly removing the 64-bit > > version. So perhaps you are right. However, installing the 32-bit > > version (with yum) seems to have removed the 64-bit version! How did > > that happen, I wonder? > > I'd have thought "yum install firefox.i386" would work. I can't try > myself because I don't have an AMD64 system. It would, except that, like Mozilla, firefox.i386 is not in the x86_64 tree. Neither are some of the needed 32-bit libraries, apparently. The packages that are in the x86_64 tree are trivial to install. So what I have done is setup some .repo files (disabled by default) with the 32-bit paths hard-coded called base-i386 and updates-released-i386. So the yum line ends up being yum --enablerepo=base-i386 --enablerepo=updates-released-i386 install firefox.i386 This is why I do not understand how the OP got mozilla.i386 installed without his knowledge. Or how another person had gnome-panel.i386 installed. > > This is getting stranger all the time. Still, > > even if I was able to install both versions at the same time, though, > > there would be no easy way to run the 32-bit version because it would > > be masked by the 64-bit version. I'd argue that this could be a bad > > policy, unless the packages are made to work that way. > > I agree it's not very useful for non-library packages. I could imagine a few cases where you might want the 32-bit packages (need 32-bit plugins, developer who needs 32-bit versions for testing, etc), and in those cases it might be nice to have both installed. Jonathan
