64bit! But which one?

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Tue Oct 25 06:21:28 PDT 2005


On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Alan Lord wrote:

> Thanks Ken,
>
> Hmmmm it all sounds a bit too "messy" for my tastes. Perhaps 64bit isn't
> quite ready for action yet?
>
  Well, your requirements are a bit heavy - bloatw^H^H^H^H^H^HOpenOffice 
plus LAMP ;)  These are still early days for x86_64.

  I'm *mostly* running pure64 these days, with only 3 things that don't 
work - grub, flash, realplayer.  You can probably add other firefox 
plugins to that list, if you use any.  Some applications show occasional 
problems compiling, but mostly they aren't a big deal.  The only thing I 
miss is realplayer, which is why I sometimes boot i686.  My server is 
also pure64, but the only noticeable things on it are fetchmail, 
SpamAssassin, nfs-server, ntp, and a locally-accessible apache.

  Multilib, bar the wrinkles that still need to be ironed out, is ok 
except for the knock-on effects on BLFS (a distro will put all of their 
preferred changes and flags into their specfile or wherever, we have to 
determine these things for ourselves).

> I tend to build LFSs frequently and like to keep them as pure an
> unadaulterated as possible.
>
> Maybe I will build a "normal" 32bit linux and run with that for a while
> until I can build a nice and clean 64bit system...
>

  If you already build LFS (and BLFS) frequently, it shouldn't be a big 
deal.  But keep a working system around until you know everything works.
Use a 32-bit LFS to build your first 64-bit system and find out what you 
like, and don't like, about it.  And keep adequate notes!

  The great thing about building from a 32-bit host is that you have a 
comfortable X desktop of your choice while you are creating the new LFS 
system.

Ken
-- 
  das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce


More information about the lfs-chat mailing list