64bit! But which one?
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
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the lfs-chat