Hiya,
If someone's re-investigating/rebuilding most of the third-party libraries
anyway...
Isn't it a good time for the SL Linux client to go (probably exclusively)
64-bit? This wasn't true 8 years ago and wasn't quite true 4 years ago,
but I think on balance it'd be a good and happy move in 2014
Agreed on the conservative versioning for reasons of minimal requirements
and maximal compatibility - this is (was?) always a conscious goal.
Ta,
--Adam
On 19 August 2014 12:27, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 09:37:36 +0200, Lance Corrimal wrote:
>
> > > Am Montag, 18. August 2014
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:47:22 +0100, Adam Moss wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> If someone's re-investigating/rebuilding most of the third-party libraries
> anyway...
> Isn't it a good time for the SL Linux client to go (probably exclusively)
> 64-bit? This wasn't true 8 years ago and wasn't quite true 4 years
Am 20.08.2014 um 17:38 schrieb Henri Beauchamp:
> If you wish to make 64 bits builds, then fine (and yes, it'd be nice
> to have a set of pre-built 64 bits libraries from LL), but it's really
> too soon to drop 32 bits support, especially under Linux... Henri.
on the other hand Redhat enterprise
