Am 23.07.2013 22:16, schrieb doug:
> On 07/21/2013 06:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 22.07.2013 00:27, schrieb Kevin Martin:
>>> For a long time wine needed the 32 bit libs, as did Adobe Reader (they may
>>> still, I don't know as I don't use
>>> them at all these
>>> days). If you have e
On 07/21/2013 06:30 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 22.07.2013 00:27, schrieb Kevin Martin:
For a long time wine needed the 32 bit libs, as did Adobe Reader (they may
still, I don't know as I don't use them at all these
days). If you have either of those installed it may be why you still have the
Am 22.07.2013 13:41, schrieb lee:
> Reindl Harald writes:
>> no, but "yum remove \*i686\*" should kill them :-)
>
> So I have removed the i686 packages:
>
> | [root@yun:~]$ yum list installed |grep 686
> | texlive-url.noarch 3:svn16864.3.2-0.1.fc19
> installed
> |
Am 22.07.2013 14:31, schrieb lee:
> Reindl Harald writes:
>> because the FHS says it and after UsrMove anything
>> in /lib was merged to /usr/lib
>>
>> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root7 2013-05-30 23:36 bin -> usr/bin
>> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root7 2013-05-30 23:36 lib -> usr/lib
>> lrwxrwxrw
Am 22.07.2013 00:27, schrieb Kevin Martin:
> For a long time wine needed the 32 bit libs, as did Adobe Reader (they may
> still, I don't know as I don't use them at all these
> days). If you have either of those installed it may be why you still have
> the 32 bit libs installed
wine, AdobeRea
Michael Schwendt writes:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:31:11 +0200, lee wrote:
>
>> >> /usr/lib/ should be empty now. Why is it not?
>> >
>> > says who?
>>
>> Since libraries are supposed to be in /usr/lib64 on 64bit systems and
>> the packages that provide 32bit software are removed, there aren't a
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:31:11 +0200, lee wrote:
> >> /usr/lib/ should be empty now. Why is it not?
> >
> > says who?
>
> Since libraries are supposed to be in /usr/lib64 on 64bit systems and
> the packages that provide 32bit software are removed, there aren't any
> libraries left to go into /usr/
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 22.07.2013 13:41, schrieb lee:
>> Reindl Harald writes:
>>> no, but "yum remove \*i686\*" should kill them :-)
>>
>> So I have removed the i686 packages:
>>
>> | [root@yun:~]$ yum list installed |grep 686
>> | texlive-url.noarch 3:svn16864.3.2-0.1.fc19
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 21.07.2013 10:46, schrieb lee:
>> Reindl Harald writes:
>>> Am 20.07.2013 20:02, schrieb lee:
>>>> what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
>>>> /usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
>>>>
>>>>
Ed Greshko writes:
> On 07/21/13 22:51, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>> On 07/21/2013 02:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> That is wrong advice. You don't need --nodeps to remove the 32-bit
>>> packages. You could do things similar to
>>>
>>> rpm -qa|grep \.i\*86$|xargs rpm -e
>>>
>>> to remove all o
>> Any idea as to why there are so many 32bit libs installed I don't need?
>
> no, but "yum remove \*i686\*" should kill them :-)
>
> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ rpm -qa | grep i686 | wc -l
> 0
>
> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ rpm -qa | grep x86_64 | wc -l
> 1081
>
> [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ rpm -qa | grep noarc
Am 21.07.2013 14:02, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:59:21 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:13:03 +0200
>> lee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, why are there so many i686 packages installed:
>>
>> I have noticed Fedora x86_64 tends to do that as long as I've been
>>
Am 20.07.2013 20:02, schrieb lee:
> what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
> /usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
>
> I'm trying to get libsx installed and am wondering into which of these
> directories it is supposed to go. /usr/local/lib/ sounds like "
Am 21.07.2013 10:46, schrieb lee:
> Reindl Harald writes:
>> Am 20.07.2013 20:02, schrieb lee:
>>> what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
>>> /usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get libsx installed and am wondering
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:51:01 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 07/21/2013 02:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > That is wrong advice. You don't need --nodeps to remove the 32-bit
> > packages. You could do things similar to
> >
> > rpm -qa|grep \.i\*86$|xargs rpm -e
> >
> > to remove all of th
On 07/21/13 22:51, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 07/21/2013 02:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> That is wrong advice. You don't need --nodeps to remove the 32-bit
>> packages. You could do things similar to
>>
>> rpm -qa|grep \.i\*86$|xargs rpm -e
>>
>> to remove all of them at once without introdu
On 07/21/2013 02:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> That is wrong advice. You don't need --nodeps to remove the 32-bit
> packages. You could do things similar to
>
> rpm -qa|grep \.i\*86$|xargs rpm -e
>
> to remove all of them at once without introducing broken dependencies.
I would run a
yum
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:02:20 +0200
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > It will complain if try you remove them,
> > but it can be done slowly\carefully.
> > using rpm -e --nodeps where appropriate (Use with Caution)
>
> That is wrong advice. You don't need --nodeps to remove the 32-bit
> packages. You
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:59:21 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:13:03 +0200
> lee wrote:
>
> >
> > BTW, why are there so many i686 packages installed:
> >
> >
>
> I have noticed Fedora x86_64 tends to do that as long as I've been
> using Fedora.
> what I've resorted to in /et
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:13:03 +0200, lee wrote:
> Thanks! I don't do 32bit anymore, so it's 64.
>
> Strange is:
>
>
> [root@yun:~]$ find /usr/lib -type f | wc -l
> 14490
> [root@yun:~]$ find /usr/lib64/ -type f | wc -l
> 15345
> [root@yun:~]$
Not so strange, because /usr/lib does not imply "32
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:13:03 +0200
lee wrote:
>
> BTW, why are there so many i686 packages installed:
>
>
I have noticed Fedora x86_64 tends to do that as long as I've been
using Fedora.
what I've resorted to in /etc/yum.conf is:
exclude=*i386* *i486* *i586* *i686
It will complain if try you
On 07/21/13 16:13, lee wrote:
> Ed Greshko writes:
>
>> On 07/21/13 02:02, lee wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
>>> /usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get lib
Ed Greshko writes:
> On 07/21/13 02:02, lee wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
>> /usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
>>
>> I'm trying to get libsx installed and am wondering into which of these
>> directories
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 20.07.2013 20:02, schrieb lee:
>> what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
>> /usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
>>
>> I'm trying to get libsx installed and am wondering into which of these
>> directories it is suppos
On 07/21/13 02:02, lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
> /usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
>
> I'm trying to get libsx installed and am wondering into which of these
> directories it is supposed to go. /usr/local/lib/ sounds like
Hi,
what is supposed to go into /usr/local/lib/ and what into
/usr/local/lib64 on amd64?
I'm trying to get libsx installed and am wondering into which of these
directories it is supposed to go. /usr/local/lib/ sounds like "native",
but then there wouldn't be /usr/local/li
26 matches
Mail list logo
