On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:51PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> I can't really add a lot here as I haven't tried it yet. I think
>> pure-64 is ideal, but from what little I've looked into it, that is just
>> not possible.yet,
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:44 PM, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> From what I've seen of it, I guess there is no concept of
> {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 or /usr/include64 like there is for the lib dirs (or
> the alternate). I mean a total separation of the system, side by side
> would be ideal IMO.
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:44:51PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> I can't really add a lot here as I haven't tried it yet. I think
> pure-64 is ideal, but from what little I've looked into it, that is just
> not possible.yet, not to mention that it breaks the LSB goal.
Maybe "not possible" for y
You might want to consider examining how Greg Schafer does 32-bit, 64-bit and
biarch. It's simple and clean. I just built a biarch system following his
instructions to see how it works, and I had no problems.
I haven't using BLFS or CBLFS with it yet to see if there are any problems
there.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> Bruce, Randy, ya'll got anything to add?
>
> No, not really. On a LUG list I read we just had a long discussion about
> problems on guy had getting his wireless to work with ndis wrapper. He was
> using Ubuntu64 and never could get it to work. When h
DJ Lucas wrote:
> From what I've seen of it, I guess there is no concept of
> {,/usr}/{,s}bin64 or /usr/include64 like there is for the lib dirs (or
> the alternate). I mean a total separation of the system, side by side
> would be ideal IMO. Unfortunately I am just not able to make any usefu
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Bruce, Randy, ya'll got anything to add?
No, not really. On a LUG list I read we just had a long discussion about
problems on guy had getting his wireless to work with ndis wrapper. He was
using Ubuntu64 and never could get it to work. When he went to Ubuntu32, it
was
fin
Nathan Coulson wrote:
> I noticed one person mentioning 64bit LFS on a previous post. It made
> me wonder how LFS may address this in the future.
>
Actually, it's been mentioned a few times in the past week.
> On my own, I took the multilib plunge about 6 months ago. (sortof a
> hodgepodge of
I noticed one person mentioning 64bit LFS on a previous post. It made
me wonder how LFS may address this in the future.
On my own, I took the multilib plunge about 6 months ago. (sortof a
hodgepodge of LFS's buildsystem, and a few occassional CLFS patch's).
I had the following ideals in mind in
