On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Steve Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suppose it's naive to think that some tool like portupgrade could be > bent to build all the depends with -m32 as well? I guess you'd wind > up with a bunch of things you didn't want as 32-bit (i.e. XOrg?) being > re-installed as 32bit, right? I don't suppose there's any > infrastructure for simultaneously installing two versions of a port > (one of the reasons BSD doesn't crash as much as win32, no doubt, and > that we don't usually have .dll/.so hell)...still I might settle for a > 32-bit X if I could have 64-bit disk & network still... > > Steve >
Jail. I suspect I could build the base system plus X and copy everything over to a jailed dir. Once there, I could set -m32 in the CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS of the system make.conf. Build WINE in the jail, add a /usr/local... bin32, lib32 and libexec32 to the main (non-jail) part of the OS, and copy everything there. Then update the path and libpath for my system... OK, not simple, but it'll be an interesting experiment. *Jeremy Clarkson* What could /possibly/ go wrong? Not really had the issues you mentioned in Windows in the last few years, but I still prefer FreeBSD - the KDE and Gnome user interfaces (desktop management) are just much more efficient for getting work done (for me anyway) than that of Windows, and I can have a lot more control over my system. -Jim Stapleton _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"