From Jason.Russler at noaa.gov Wed Dec 1 14:11:10 2004 From: Jason.Russler at noaa.gov (Jason Russler) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:11:10 -0500 Subject: RHAS 3, dual opteron S2885 Tyan kernel crash issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41ADD0FE.1030600@noaa.gov> > anyone has some suggestions there, I'd be open to them. Is it a > matter of just upgrading the LVM packages to version 2? Any chance of > using the packages from the latest Nahant beta to get this to work? > Other comments/suggestions from anyone else who's got a similar > configuration? Never trust a major upgrade process when using a Linux LVM. Even if you have all of the *tab and config files - or even if you're just upgrading the kernel to 2.6. Got burned there once. Just backup all the data to tape or other disks and expect to rebuild the LVM setup from scratch - the upgrade my work, or it may not. That's my 2-cents. -- // Jason Russler ----------------------------------------// // RS Information Systems -------------------------------// // Unix Systems Administrator ---------------------------// // ORA/NESDIS/NOAA U.S. Department of Commerce ----------// // 8th Floor WWB in the cube next to Matt ---------------// // ph: 301.763.8209 ex. 339 -----------------------------// From david at wwns.com Wed Dec 1 14:30:35 2004 From: david at wwns.com (David R. Wilson) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:30:35 -0600 Subject: FC3 Networking on an Asrock K8 Combo Z motherboard Message-ID: <1101911435.3401.91.camel@www1.wwns.com> Hello fellows, I have a system (good paperweight so far) with an Asrock K8 Combo Z motherboard (Athlon 64 based) and I have not been able to get networking up on the box. From doing some surfing I found it looks like it should work with the SIS900 routines, however I have not had any luck getting that to work. I have also tried a Linksys DFE-530TX+ card with the 8139too drivers with the same result. Any suggestions would be appreciated. lspci and /proc/interrupts listings are attached. Dave -------------- next part -------------- 00:00.0 Host bridge: ALi Corporation: Unknown device 1689 Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- Status: Cap+ 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- SERR- 00:01.0 PCI bridge: ALi Corporation: Unknown device 5246 (prog-if 00 [Normal decode]) Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- Status: Cap- 66Mhz+ UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- SERR- TAbort- Reset- FastB2B- 00:02.0 PCI bridge: ALi Corporation M5249 HTT to PCI Bridge (prog-if 01 [Subtractive decode]) Control: I/O- Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- Status: Cap- 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- SERR- TAbort- Reset- FastB2B- 00:03.0 ISA bridge: ALi Corporation M1563 HyperTransport South Bridge (rev 70) Subsystem: ASRock Incorporation: Unknown device 1563 Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle+ MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- Status: Cap- 66Mhz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- Region 1: I/O ports at Region 2: I/O ports at Region 3: I/O ports at Region 4: I/O ports at ff00 [size=16] 00:0e.1 Unknown mass storage controller: ALi Corporation: Unknown device 5289 (rev 10) (prog-if 8f) Subsystem: ASRock Incorporation: Unknown device 5289 Control: I/O+ Mem- BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR+ FastB2B- Status: Cap- 66Mhz+ UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- TAbort- SERR- Capabilities: [50] Power Management version 2 Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1+ D2+ AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-) Status: D0 PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME- 01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc: Unknown device 5940 (rev 01) Subsystem: PC Partner Limited: Unknown device 7c27 Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- Status: Cap+ 66Mhz+ UDF- FastB2B+ ParErr- DEVSEL=medium >TAbort- SERR- I have fc3 i386 on an amd64 machine. I don't want to move the install to x86_64, but I do want to run occasional x86_64 programs. When I do though I get: bash: /usr/local/bin/myprog: cannot execute binary file Should I install x86_64 bash? Will that mess up my i386 programs? If I did reinstall x86_64, will I have the same problem running i386 programs? sean From arjanv at redhat.com Wed Dec 1 15:31:54 2004 From: arjanv at redhat.com (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:31:54 +0100 Subject: how do I run x86_64 programs on fc3 i386? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1101915114.2640.33.camel@laptop.fenrus.org> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 09:41 -0500, sean darcy wrote: > I have fc3 i386 on an amd64 machine. I don't want to move the install to > x86_64, but I do want to run occasional x86_64 programs. When I do though I > get: > > bash: /usr/local/bin/myprog: cannot execute binary file you need a 64 bit kernel at minimum, and 64 bit glibc etc etc etc > > Should I install x86_64 bash? Will that mess up my i386 programs? bash isn't the one you care about > > If I did reinstall x86_64, will I have the same problem running i386 > programs? nope -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jch at scalix.com Wed Dec 1 15:31:46 2004 From: jch at scalix.com (John Haxby) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:31:46 +0000 Subject: RHAS 3, dual opteron S2885 Tyan kernel crash issues In-Reply-To: <41ADD0FE.1030600@noaa.gov> References: Message-ID: <41ADE3E2.1010307@scalix.com> Jason Russler wrote: >> anyone has some suggestions there, I'd be open to them. Is it a >> matter of just upgrading the LVM packages to version 2? Any chance of >> using the packages from the latest Nahant beta to get this to work? >> Other comments/suggestions from anyone else who's got a similar >> configuration? > > > Never trust a major upgrade process when using a Linux LVM. Even if > you have all of the *tab and config files - or even if you're just > upgrading the kernel to 2.6. Got burned there once. Just backup all > the data to tape or other disks and expect to rebuild the LVM setup > from scratch - the upgrade my work, or it may not. That's my 2-cents. > While I wouldn't go quite so far as Jason's comments, in this case I agree. It is possible to get the 2.6 kernel with LVM2 running on RHEL3 (AS, ES, or WS), but it's a bit painful -- I speak from personal experience -- and you still have some things that simply no longer work. Taking the kernel and LVM2 RPMs from nahant almost certainly won't work (was that what you were suggesting?). On the other hand, a straightforward upgrade from taroon to nahant should work. Having said that you'll be working with LVM1 data structures and I believe that there are advantages to using the LVM2 data structures. If you back everything up to tape or a spare disk and install nahant beta2 from scratch then you'll be able to install nahant-proper when it comes out without blowing away all your logical volumes; just splat the system ones (an upgrade from nahant beta to final won't be supported). jch From McIntoshJ at missouri.edu Wed Dec 1 15:52:48 2004 From: McIntoshJ at missouri.edu (Jason McIntosh) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:52:48 -0600 Subject: RHAS 3, dual opteron S2885 Tyan kernel crash issues In-Reply-To: <41ADE3E2.1010307@scalix.com> References: <41ADE3E2.1010307@scalix.com> Message-ID: <0CA55A7C-43B1-11D9-8AC8-000A959CF864@missouri.edu> After trying several things, it looks like I am going to reinstall without using LVM at this time. There would have been some advantages, but overall, it looks like LVM is MUCH more of a pain than useful. Perhaps at some later date, when things settle down more (i.e. LVM2 becomes the standard) I'll go back to it. This should also make upgrading a ton easier. I tried upgrading by installing device mapper, LVM2 (which is supposedly backwards compliant), the newer mkinitrd, etc. This didn't help things, at all. The kernel still couldn't seem to run vgascan to find the volume group and load it properly. And when it comes down to it, I'd rather just get a system up than continue to play, so reformatting without LVM looks like the best option. So, after playing with it for a day or two, that's what I've come up with. Thanks for the suggestions all. Jason Jason McIntosh Programmer/Analyst University of Missouri 573-884-3865 GnuPG Key: http://poetshome.com/about/mcintoshj_missouri.edu.gpgkey On Dec 1, 2004, at 9:31 AM, John Haxby wrote: > Jason Russler wrote: > >>> anyone has some suggestions there, I'd be open to them. Is it a >>> matter of just upgrading the LVM packages to version 2? Any chance >>> of using the packages from the latest Nahant beta to get this to >>> work? Other comments/suggestions from anyone else who's got a >>> similar configuration? >> >> >> Never trust a major upgrade process when using a Linux LVM. Even if >> you have all of the *tab and config files - or even if you're just >> upgrading the kernel to 2.6. Got burned there once. Just backup all >> the data to tape or other disks and expect to rebuild the LVM setup >> from scratch - the upgrade my work, or it may not. That's my >> 2-cents. >> > While I wouldn't go quite so far as Jason's comments, in this case I > agree. It is possible to get the 2.6 kernel with LVM2 running on > RHEL3 (AS, ES, or WS), but it's a bit painful -- I speak from personal > experience -- and you still have some things that simply no longer > work. Taking the kernel and LVM2 RPMs from nahant almost certainly > won't work (was that what you were suggesting?). On the other hand, > a straightforward upgrade from taroon to nahant should work. Having > said that you'll be working with LVM1 data structures and I believe > that there are advantages to using the LVM2 data structures. > > If you back everything up to tape or a spare disk and install nahant > beta2 from scratch then you'll be able to install nahant-proper when > it comes out without blowing away all your logical volumes; just splat > the system ones (an upgrade from nahant beta to final won't be > supported). > > jch > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list From jch at scalix.com Wed Dec 8 09:15:41 2004 From: jch at scalix.com (John Haxby) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:15:41 +0000 Subject: XMMS Mp3 support In-Reply-To: <409482FB.5090306@austin.rr.com> References: <409482FB.5090306@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <41B6C63D.7020904@scalix.com> Jason Knight wrote: > How do most of you go about adding mp3 support to xmms? I tried > recompiling both the xmms-mp3 src rpm and the xmms from xmms.org to no > avail (didn't do anything once installed and errors during compile > respectively). What is your method? Personally, I don't have a problem hacking RPM spec files and source until it works :-) However, the easiest way is to go to freshrpms.net and get xmms, xine, etc from there. There's quite a lot of x86_64 stuff there now (as I found out when I accidentally downloaded the wrong version of lame yesterday. jch From eugen at leitl.org Wed Dec 8 11:15:25 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:15:25 +0100 Subject: dual head support fixed?/nVidia Message-ID: <20041208111525.GT9221@leitl.org> Anyone knows whether the dual head hang X.org in FC3 is fixed, and I can go back to 5 as standard runlevel? These text-only root logins and manual telinit 5 have a terribly low WAF (wife acceptance factor), alas. I'm also disappointed with ATI Radeon drivers and ATI Radeon support of Linux community in general, and thinking about buying a more or less recent nVidia card. What's the nVidia binary driver support situation for x86_64, with dual-head (dual DVI)? Is performance really as good as claimed (twice of Radeon), and how is stability? Dual DVI/dual head support? Thanks. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brilong at cisco.com Thu Dec 9 21:25:40 2004 From: brilong at cisco.com (Brian Long) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:25:40 -0500 Subject: ECC scrub options? Message-ID: <1102627540.27746.41.camel@brilong-lnx> Hello, I've noticed different vendors use different BIOS defaults for the AMD64 ECC hardware scrubbing. Tyan S2884 | Sun V40z (Newisys 4300) -----------------------------------|--------- Dcache ECC Scrub Ctl Disabled | 5.12us L2 ECC Scrub Ctl Disabled | 10.2us Dram ECC Scrub Ctl 1.3ms | 163.8us Has anyone on this list experimented with how these values affect application and OS performance on RHEL 3 AMD64? We've seen blackbox servers running the Tyan motherboard outperform Tier 1 vendor Quad Opteron machines and I wonder how much these settings have to do with it. Thanks for any info. /Brian/ -- Brian Long | | | IT Data Center Systems | .|||. .|||. Cisco Linux Developer | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:.. Phone: (919) 392-7363 | C i s c o S y s t e m s From ericm at sfour.no-ip.com Thu Dec 16 22:42:44 2004 From: ericm at sfour.no-ip.com (Eric Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:42:44 -0500 Subject: Cisco VPN client and 64bit kernel Message-ID: <41C20F64.3020305@sfour.no-ip.com> Has anyone been able to successfully compile Cisco's VPN client on a 64 bit platform? I am using Fedora Core 3, custom kernel and I am having no luck with this. I have exported -m32 within my CFLAGS, still with no luck. [ericm at infineon vpnclient]$ sudo echo $CFLAGS -m32 [ericm at infineon vpnclient]$ sudo ./vpn_install Cisco Systems VPN Client Version 4.6.00 (0045) Linux Installer Copyright (C) 1998-2004 Cisco Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. By installing this product you agree that you have read the license.txt file (The VPN Client license) and will comply with its terms. Directory where binaries will be installed [/usr/local/bin] Automatically start the VPN service at boot time [yes]y In order to build the VPN kernel module, you must have the kernel headers for the version of the kernel you are running. Directory containing linux kernel source code [/lib/modules/2.6.9/build]/usr/src/linux-2.6.9 * Binaries will be installed in "/usr/local/bin". * Modules will be installed in "/lib/modules/2.6.9/CiscoVPN". * The VPN service will be started AUTOMATICALLY at boot time. * Kernel source from "/usr/src/linux-2.6.9" will be used to build the module. Is the above correct [y]y Making module make -C /usr/src/linux-2.6.9 SUBDIRS=/home/ericm/vpnclient modules make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.9' CC [M] /home/ericm/vpnclient/linuxcniapi.o In file included from /home/ericm/vpnclient/Cniapi.h:15, from /home/ericm/vpnclient/linuxcniapi.c:34: /home/ericm/vpnclient/GenDefs.h:101:2: warning: #warning 64 bit In file included from /home/ericm/vpnclient/Cniapi.h:15, from /home/ericm/vpnclient/linuxcniapi.c:34: /home/ericm/vpnclient/GenDefs.h:102: error: syntax error before "intptr_t" /home/ericm/vpnclient/GenDefs.h:102: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of `intptr_t' /home/ericm/vpnclient/GenDefs.h:102: warning: data definition has no type or storage class /home/ericm/vpnclient/GenDefs.h:111:2: warning: #warning 64 bit make[2]: *** [/home/ericm/vpnclient/linuxcniapi.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [_module_/home/ericm/vpnclient] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.9' make: *** [default] Error 2 Failed to make module "cisco_ipsec.ko". Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Eric From arjanv at redhat.com Fri Dec 17 08:50:56 2004 From: arjanv at redhat.com (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:50:56 +0100 Subject: Cisco VPN client and 64bit kernel In-Reply-To: <41C20F64.3020305@sfour.no-ip.com> References: <41C20F64.3020305@sfour.no-ip.com> Message-ID: <1103273456.4138.11.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 17:42 -0500, Eric Mittelstaedt wrote: > Has anyone been able to successfully compile Cisco's VPN client on a 64 > bit platform? binary only kernel modules also need their binary part as 64 bit before this even has a remote chance of working... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From networkr0 at cfl.rr.com Sun Dec 19 19:36:18 2004 From: networkr0 at cfl.rr.com (Brian Chase) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:36:18 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: my new superdesktop...] Message-ID: <41C5D832.8020800@cfl.rr.com> Comments, updates? -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Brian Chase Subject: Re: my new superdesktop... Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:44 -0500 Size: 2542 URL: From bill at cse.ucdavis.edu Sun Dec 19 20:59:32 2004 From: bill at cse.ucdavis.edu (Bill Broadley) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:59:32 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: my new superdesktop...] In-Reply-To: <41C5D832.8020800@cfl.rr.com> References: <41C5D832.8020800@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041219205932.GA15064@cse.ucdavis.edu> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 02:36:18PM -0500, Brian Chase wrote: > Comments, updates? I'm still hearing similar results, but don't forget AMD64's also have compelling 32 bit performance. If the apps you want don't run well in 64 bit environments then just install the 32-bit version. > Not real happy with my choice for AMD64, mainly because the availability > of software is quite limited, and things like java and flash are either > difficult to get working, or unavailable for the platform. > Understanding that my main use will be a terminal server, I'm kinda > regretting not getting a dual Xeon for just a nice robust 32 bit box Why? You can install 32 bits today and wait for things to mature, then at a time of your choosing upgrade to 64 bits and a bit of extra performance. > compared to Redhat based x86-64 or Suse distro's and it won't be > released into "stable" for at least a couple more years, a snails pace > compared to other Linux distro's release schedule. Er, debian stable is er stable, if it's not bleeding edge enough for you use something newer. > The only reason, IMHO, to run out and grab a AMD64 platform today is for > simulation or some other VERY computationally intensive task, like a > QualNet Network Simulation, high end database server or something. > Interested in hearing others' experiences along these lines. AMD64's tend to have better performance and take less power, certainly if you don't have any applications that need 64 bit stick with the more mature 32 bit ports. The S2882 has twice the bandwidth of any of the dual intels, even with a 32 bit OS that can be worthwhile, presumably you bought such hardware because you needed the performance. -- Bill Broadley Computational Science and Engineering UC Davis From berryja at gmail.com Sun Dec 19 21:21:42 2004 From: berryja at gmail.com (Jonathan Berry) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:21:42 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: Re: my new superdesktop...] In-Reply-To: <41C5D832.8020800@cfl.rr.com> References: <41C5D832.8020800@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <8767947e04121913215da5b07c@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:36:18 -0500, Brian Chase wrote: > Comments, updates? > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > I've tried numerous distro's for my dual Opteron Tyan S2882 board, each > with their own shortfalls. > > Not real happy with my choice for AMD64, mainly because the availability > of software is quite limited, and things like java and flash are either > difficult to get working, or unavailable for the platform. > Understanding that my main use will be a terminal server, I'm kinda > regretting not getting a dual Xeon for just a nice robust 32 bit box > that runs everything and gives me lots of choices. Even though I've > really come to like Debian, the AMD64 port is difficult to install when > compared to Redhat based x86-64 or Suse distro's and it won't be > released into "stable" for at least a couple more years, a snails pace > compared to other Linux distro's release schedule. > > The only reason, IMHO, to run out and grab a AMD64 platform today is for > simulation or some other VERY computationally intensive task, like a > QualNet Network Simulation, high end database server or something. > Interested in hearing others' experiences along these lines. > > Brian Hi Brian, I have really enjoyed my AMD64 laptop that I bought a few months ago (Compaq R3000Z). It runs great, and I eventually want to put together an AMD64 desktop, though it may be a while. The nForce4 chipset looks quite nice. I've only tried Fedora Core's x86_64 OS and have been quite pleased with it. It does everything except for built-in wireless (Broadcom). I haven't tried many distros (due to lack of HD space), but FC (currently 2, I'll upgrade to 3 soon) has been a rock solid distro for me. To me, the decision to buy an AMD64 was because I wanted an AMD laptop and the 64's were about the same as many of the 32-bit laptops (both AMD and Intel). And I'll be ready for when 64-bit becomes the standard. The best part about AMD64 is that it runs i386 stuff just as well! Sure, a dual Zeon may run 32-bit apps quite well, but AMD64 also runs 32-bit well, and I'd say are much less expensive. You have a solid 32-bit machine if you want to use it as such untill 64-bit is better supported. But you can still run 32-bit apps when running a 64-bit OS! How great is that? Everything that is outside the kernel is supported, 32-bit and 64-bit, as long as you don't try to mix 64-bit apps and 32-bit plugins (like Flash; I just use 32-bit Firefox so I can use plugins). 64-bit is the future (that seems to be a safe prediction), so my AMD64 machine should be around longer than any 32-bit computer. IA64 seems to be dying, and I don't know what Intel will do, whether try to squeeze more out of their 32-bit CPUs or go to an AMD64 based instruction set architecture, or try to develop yet another 64-bit ISA of their own, but it seems there will be a point where 64-bit should take over. Intel's HyperThreading is impressive, I'll give them that, but AMD has 64-bit and will be delivering dual core soon. I'm thinking dual core (which Intel is also developing) will beat out HT performance, though they probably will be more expensive than their single core counterparts. But when next generation hardware is in the same price bracket as current generation (and is backward compatible), then why not go with next generation? It was an easy decision for me : ). Jonathan From Calvin.Austin at Sun.COM Mon Dec 20 18:36:35 2004 From: Calvin.Austin at Sun.COM (Calvin Austin) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:36:35 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: my new superdesktop...] In-Reply-To: <41C5D832.8020800@cfl.rr.com> References: <41C5D832.8020800@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <41C71BB3.4020601@Sun.COM> My Dual AMD64 is my build machine of choice, I use it to run a 32bit Java JVM which we then use to bootstrap a 64bit JVM build. Builds do a lot of C/C++ and Java compilation so that really isn't a good comparison to a terminal server but doesn't count as a specialist application, it just does it faster. For a terminal server your network card(s) driver is obviously going to be key. The one downside to flash and Java is that the native web browser is a 64bit process and can't load a 32bit process/plugin. I'm using a regular 32bit web browser until the 64bit versions are out (we are currently working on a 64bit JVM plugin) regards calvin Brian Chase wrote: > Comments, updates? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: my new superdesktop... > From: > Brian Chase > Date: > Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:44 -0500 > To: > LINUX-L at LISTS.UFL.EDU > > To: > LINUX-L at LISTS.UFL.EDU > > > I've tried numerous distro's for my dual Opteron Tyan S2882 board, > each with their own shortfalls. > > Not real happy with my choice for AMD64, mainly because the > availability of software is quite limited, and things like java and > flash are either difficult to get working, or unavailable for the > platform. Understanding that my main use will be a terminal server, > I'm kinda regretting not getting a dual Xeon for just a nice robust 32 > bit box that runs everything and gives me lots of choices. Even > though I've really come to like Debian, the AMD64 port is difficult to > install when compared to Redhat based x86-64 or Suse distro's and it > won't be released into "stable" for at least a couple more years, a > snails pace compared to other Linux distro's release schedule. > > The only reason, IMHO, to run out and grab a AMD64 platform today is > for simulation or some other VERY computationally intensive task, like > a QualNet Network Simulation, high end database server or something. > Interested in hearing others' experiences along these lines. > > Brian > > Jason Boxman wrote: > >> On Sunday 19 December 2004 13:36, Jeff Lasman wrote: >> >> >> >>> So, figuring that since I don't play 3D action games, it wouldn't be >>> too >>> hard to come up with my desktop for the next few years, I went to the >>> Computer Fair in Pomona, California, yesterday. >>> >>> And bought... >>> >>> Intel Desktop Board D865GBF >>> 800 MHz fsb >>> Dual SATA 1.5Gb/s >>> Intel Extreme Graphics2 / AGP 8X >>> Four Dual-Channel DDR DIMM Sockets >>> Six PCI slots >>> Six Channel Audio >>> Intel PRO/1000,100,10 Ethernet >>> Eight USB 2.0 ports >>> >> >> >> Personally I would've gotten AMD64. ;) Multi-monitor setups are your >> friend, >> too. >> >> >> >>> Intel P4 3Ghz Processor >>> 800 fsb, 1MB L2 cache >>> Hyperthreading >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jason Boxman >> Perl Programmer / *NIX Systems Administrator >> Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing | University of Florida >> http://edseek.com/ - Linux and FOSS stuff >> >> > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From mk at crc.dk Tue Dec 21 11:12:53 2004 From: mk at crc.dk (Mogens Kjaer) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:12:53 +0100 Subject: FC3 x86_64 >2G memory problem Message-ID: <41C80535.4010001@crc.dk> First: Is this the right list to post a question about some memory troubles I've had trying to install the x86_64 version of Fedora on a 2xIntel Xeon machine with EM64T? If not please tell me where I can get help on this problem: The machine is an HP XW8200 workstation, 2x3.6 GHz Xeon EM64T, 4G of memory, one SATA disk. The problem is this: I've set it up to dualboot FC3-ix86 and FC3-x86_64. Installing the 32 bit version of FC3 went without problems. All memory is available, /proc/meminfo gives: MemTotal: 4145268 kB The problem is now, that FC3-x86_64 won't install at all. The disk is not recognized during the install. This was a bit strange, as we just have had a similar workstation on loan from HP (with only 2G of RAM), on this FC3-x86_64 installed without problems. I tried removing 2G, and yes, now the installation went without problems. I ran up2date, and updated everything (the kernel is now 2.6.9-1.681_FC3smp). Shut down the machine, added the 2G RAM, but then it can't boot, the disk is not found. I tried to experiment with the mem=XXXXM kernel option, and yes, this makes the machine boot (which means that I probably could have done the installation without removing memory). But the result is very strange: mem= Total memory from /proc/meminfo value MemTotal 2048M 2057732 3072M 3090824 3584M 3083640 4096M 3005384 The machine boots fine, even with mem=4096M. How do I get FC3-x86_64 to use all my memory? Mogens -- Mogens Kjaer, Carlsberg A/S, Computer Department Gamle Carlsberg Vej 10, DK-2500 Valby, Denmark Phone: +45 33 27 53 25, Fax: +45 33 27 47 08 Email: mk at crc.dk Homepage: http://www.crc.dk From dof at llgc.org.uk Tue Dec 21 13:00:54 2004 From: dof at llgc.org.uk (Dan Field) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:00:54 +0000 Subject: RHEL 3 AS Kernel RPMS Message-ID: <41C81E86.2060503@llgc.org.uk> Are these available anywhere? I can't seem to fid them with a package search for "kernel" on RHN with a machine subscribed to all channels for RHEL AS 3 (including betas). -- Dan Field http://www.cymruarywe.org/ http://www.walesontheweb.org/ Developer / Sysadmin Llyfyrgell Genedlaethol Cymru From dof at llgc.org.uk Tue Dec 21 13:54:40 2004 From: dof at llgc.org.uk (Dan Field) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:54:40 +0000 Subject: RHEL 3 AS Kernel RPMS In-Reply-To: <41C823A4.4020407@llgc.org.uk> References: <41C81E86.2060503@llgc.org.uk> <41C823A4.4020407@llgc.org.uk> Message-ID: <41C82B20.7030703@llgc.org.uk> Dan Field wrote: > Dan Field wrote: > >> Are these available anywhere? I can't seem to fid them with a package >> search for "kernel" on RHN with a machine subscribed to all channels >> for RHEL AS 3 (including betas). >> > Ah on further inspection it appears that we only have channel > subscriptions to "Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 3 for x86) > " > and not " Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (AMD64)". > > Sorry for the confusion So it looks like I should be able to do the following but it's choking for some reason: [root at sammy root]# up2date --upgrade-to-release=rhel-x86_64-as-3 https://xmlrpc.rhn.redhat.com/XMLRPC Error communicating with server. The message was: Error Message: Your account does not have access to any channels matching (release='rhel-x86_64-as-3', arch='athlon-redhat-linux') If you have a registration number, please register with it first at http://www.redhat.com/apps/activate/ and then try again. Error Class Code: 19 Error Class Info: Architecture and OS version combination is not supported. Explanation: An error has occurred while processing your request. If this problem persists please enter a bug report at bugzilla.redhat.com. If you choose to submit the bug report, please be sure to include details of what you were trying to do when this error occurred and details on how to reproduce this problem. [root at sammy root]# uname -a Linux sammy.llgc.org.uk 2.4.21-9.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu Jan 8 16:54:23 EST 2004 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux [root at sammy root]# cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep model model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 model : 5 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 [root at sammy root]# cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon Update 3) Any ideas? -- Dan Field http://www.cymruarywe.org/ http://www.walesontheweb.org/ Developer / Sysadmin Llyfyrgell Genedlaethol Cymru From devnull at adc.idt.com Tue Dec 21 16:48:22 2004 From: devnull at adc.idt.com (devnull at adc.idt.com) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:48:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: OT: Building a 32-bit firefox on FC2 Message-ID: Hello, Apologies for the OT post, but does anyone know how to build firefox from sources and get a 32-bit binary instead of a 64-bit one. Macromedia doesnt seem too keen on porting their flash plugins to AMD64(i've tried asking their "support team", w/o much luck) If you could share your mozconfig, that would be great. Thanks, /dev/null devnull at adc.idt.com From berryja at gmail.com Tue Dec 21 17:12:31 2004 From: berryja at gmail.com (Jonathan Berry) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:12:31 -0600 Subject: OT: Building a 32-bit firefox on FC2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8767947e041221091267b53687@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:48:22 -0500 (EST), devnull at adc.idt.com wrote: > Hello, > > Apologies for the OT post, but does anyone know how to build firefox from > sources and get a 32-bit binary instead of a 64-bit one. Macromedia doesnt > seem too keen on porting their flash plugins to AMD64(i've tried asking > their "support team", w/o much luck) I think you should be able to grab the src.rpm and modify the SPEC file to build a 32-bit binary. I haven't done much with src.rpms, but it seems like it should work. Probably an easier route would be to just install the 32-bit rpm. If you really want to build from sources, there ought to be a way to tell it to build for a certain architecture. > If you could share your mozconfig, that would be great. > > Thanks, > > /dev/null > > devnull at adc.idt.com > Jonathan From marc.miller at amd.com Tue Dec 21 17:15:57 2004 From: marc.miller at amd.com (Miller, Marc) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:15:57 -0800 Subject: OT: Building a 32-bit firefox on FC2 Message-ID: <291E297474215440B3C32F1056AE7ABA51192F@SSVLEXMB1.amd.com> gcc -m32 should force gcc to build in 32-bit mode. -----Original Message----- From: amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com]On Behalf Of Jonathan Berry Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:13 AM To: devnull at adc.idt.com Cc: AMD64 List @ RedHat Subject: Re: OT: Building a 32-bit firefox on FC2 On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:48:22 -0500 (EST), devnull at adc.idt.com wrote: > Hello, > > Apologies for the OT post, but does anyone know how to build firefox from > sources and get a 32-bit binary instead of a 64-bit one. Macromedia doesnt > seem too keen on porting their flash plugins to AMD64(i've tried asking > their "support team", w/o much luck) I think you should be able to grab the src.rpm and modify the SPEC file to build a 32-bit binary. I haven't done much with src.rpms, but it seems like it should work. Probably an easier route would be to just install the 32-bit rpm. If you really want to build from sources, there ought to be a way to tell it to build for a certain architecture. > If you could share your mozconfig, that would be great. > > Thanks, > > /dev/null > > devnull at adc.idt.com > Jonathan -- amd64-list mailing list amd64-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list From jinyujiemail at tom.com Wed Dec 22 13:51:19 2004 From: jinyujiemail at tom.com (Yujie JIN) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:51:19 +0800 Subject: Problem of installing Oracle 9i on AMD64 Message-ID: <200412221421.iBMEL99j001582@mx3.redhat.com> Hi! My box is AMD64 dual Opteron, and I installed Redhat AS 3.0 for AMD64 on the box. And we'd like to install Oracle 9i on it, so I tried to install Oracle 9.2.0.4 for Linux x86_64. I followed the Oracle 9i installation instructions for AS 3.0. And when the installing came to 65%, an error happened, which says: Error in invoking target install of makefile /opt/ora9/product/9.2/precomp/lib/ins_precomp.mk I searched this problem in the internet, and found it can be solved by applying the patch glibc-2.1.3-stubs.tar.gz for Oracle 8.1.7. However, when I ran the patch on the AMD64 box,I encountered an error: Rebuilding client shared library.../usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /opt/ora9/product/9.2/lib/libsql9.a when searching for -lsql9 /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lsql9 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Has anybody experienced this problem? How can I install Oracle 9i successfully on AMD64? Regards, Jennifer From hansel at hansel.mnstate.edu Wed Dec 22 20:23:19 2004 From: hansel at hansel.mnstate.edu (hansel at hansel.mnstate.edu) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:23:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: ieee1394 film scanner on FC3 In-Reply-To: <1100632601.13038.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1100632601.13038.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: I cannot get a firewire film scanner recognized by software. udev finds it and makes a (new) directory in /sys/devices/pci..../fw-host0/... On boots, ieee1394 and ohci1394 are installed. I have manually loaded the raw1394 and sbp2 modules/drivers. I have to create the devices manually (/dev/raw1394), but I don't know what scsi devices sbp2 uses. (Of course, anything I create vanishes with a reboot. That is how udev works.) I have tried sane (xsane) and vuescan. But more importantly, I cannot find a device listed in /proc/scsi /proc/bus/pci. sane cannot find the hardware by scanning (with drivers loaded) and vuescan does no better. Has anyone solve this or a similar problem? Thanks. -- Mark Hansel Minnesota State University Moorhead Moorhead, MN 56563 ph: 218-477-2039 fax: 218-477-2593 hansel at mnstate.edu http://wwwcj.mnstate.edu From mazurekd at cpsc.ucalgary.ca Wed Dec 22 22:15:15 2004 From: mazurekd at cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Debbie Mazurek) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:15:15 -0700 Subject: Problem of installing Oracle 9i on AMD64 In-Reply-To: <200412221421.iBMEL99j001582@mx3.redhat.com> References: <200412221421.iBMEL99j001582@mx3.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1103753714.2339.69.camel@hotspot> I don't know if you found this site in your research, but Werner Puschitz's articles have helped me emmensely in installing oracle 9. http://www.puschitz.com/ dm On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 06:51, Yujie JIN wrote: > Hi! > > My box is AMD64 dual Opteron, and I installed Redhat AS 3.0 for AMD64 on the box. And we'd like to install Oracle 9i on it, so I tried to install Oracle 9.2.0.4 for Linux x86_64. I followed the Oracle 9i installation instructions for AS 3.0. And when the installing came to 65%, an error happened, which says: > Error in invoking target install of makefile /opt/ora9/product/9.2/precomp/lib/ins_precomp.mk > > I searched this problem in the internet, and found it can be solved by applying the patch glibc-2.1.3-stubs.tar.gz for Oracle 8.1.7. However, when I ran the patch on the AMD64 box,I encountered an error: > Rebuilding client shared library.../usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /opt/ora9/product/9.2/lib/libsql9.a when searching for -lsql9 > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lsql9 > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > > Has anybody experienced this problem? How can I install Oracle 9i successfully on AMD64? > > Regards, > > Jennifer > > > From awol at home.nl Mon Dec 27 14:37:20 2004 From: awol at home.nl (Alexander Volovics) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:37:20 +0100 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? Message-ID: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have been reading up on possible problems. Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without problems? - Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation install or do you add them if necessary? If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add extra i386 libraries? Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without problems? - Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to a machine running FC3-x86_64. - If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? - I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? Alexander From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 14:50:28 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:50:28 +0100 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> Message-ID: <20041227145028.GP9221@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:37:20PM +0100, Alexander Volovics wrote: > In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have > been reading up on possible problems. > Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are > contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading > mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. > > - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? > Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without > problems? Check out the supported hardware list. My Asus A8V Deluxe doesn't seem to run into problems (getting FC3 to boot with a mixed PATA/SATA can be tricky, as you have to jiggle drive boot priority in BIOS). > - Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 > and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: > hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. > Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can > run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? No, if you have x86_64 OS, you need the x86_64 packages. This might be less packages, if you're hooked on livna & Co. > And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation > install or do you add them if necessary? > If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for > all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add > extra i386 libraries? > Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without > problems? > > - Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to > a machine running FC3-x86_64. I don't think so. > - If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without > problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? x86_64 has some fresh blood dripping down edge of the blade. Most of things work, but you'll see less support when you'll run into problems. E.g. you'll have trouble getting 3d acceleration going with ATI's binary drivers with newish Radeons. I've given up on my 9600, and installed an nVidia instead which worked well. I've had build issues with openhbci stuff. Expect lots more breakage if you're used to ./configure && make && make install litany. > - I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 > 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of > any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? Judging from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=MSI+K8N+Neo2+Platinum+x86_64&btnG=Google+Search it seems to work. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vamsee_k at students.iiit.net Mon Dec 27 14:47:52 2004 From: vamsee_k at students.iiit.net (G. Vamsee Krishna) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:17:52 +0530 (IST) Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> Message-ID: I've been using amd64 for the past 2 months. So my comments are based mostly on my personal experiences and the problems I've solved as a resident linux geek :-) On Mon, 27 Dec 2004, Alexander Volovics wrote: > - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? > Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without > problems? > Yes. I installed FC3-i386 and then downloaded 64-bit FC2. > - Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 > and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: > hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. > Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can > run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? You must've mistaked. I don't see any 32-bit stuff (atleast not many) in my install CDs. The general softwares directory on redhat/fedora websites has both the versions. > And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation > install or do you add them if necessary? AFAIK no 32-bit RPM is installed by default. You can install them yourself if the 64-bit version is not available. It works in most cases. > If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for > all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add > extra i386 libraries? If at all they are included only for compat reasons, I see no point why you should be needing extra libs. Just the compat libs would do. > Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without > problems? Yes. /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 can coexist without problems :-) > > - Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to > a machine running FC3-x86_64. > That's one thing I haven't tried yet. But they should work (conceptually). > > - If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without > problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? > I find my x86_64 perform a bit better than i686 (same machine - amd64). Since I have no idea how to perform any benchmarks, I can't give you any solid proofs. I can give you the output/run-times of some apps. > > - I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 > 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of > any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? > FC3 is running fine on my MSI K8N (VIA 8237) without a problem. I'm totally ignorant of UDMA drives. Hope this helps. One final word, go for it!!! It's always better to stay a step ahead... GVK -- experience is what you get when you don't get what you really wanted From eugen at leitl.org Mon Dec 27 15:40:06 2004 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:40:06 +0100 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> Message-ID: <20041227154005.GS9221@leitl.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:17:52PM +0530, G. Vamsee Krishna wrote: > FC3 is running fine on my MSI K8N (VIA 8237) without a problem. I'm > totally ignorant of UDMA drives. I've noticed hdparm is largely useless with SATA drives. It might be a chipset support issue. > Hope this helps. One final word, go for it!!! It's always better to stay a > step ahead... Speaking of which: anyone running FC3 x86_64 with IPv6? I've just applied for a tunnel (transparently handled by the router, hopefully). Any issues? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From awol at home.nl Mon Dec 27 15:50:08 2004 From: awol at home.nl (Alexander Volovics) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:50:08 +0100 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <20041227145028.GP9221@leitl.org> References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> <20041227145028.GP9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20041227155008.GA5514@home.nl> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:50:28PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:37:20PM +0100, Alexander Volovics wrote: > > - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? > > Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without > > problems? > Check out the supported hardware list. My Asus A8V Deluxe doesn't seem to run > into problems (getting FC3 to boot with a mixed PATA/SATA can be tricky, as > you have to jiggle drive boot priority in BIOS). Thanks for the reply. But I can't find an official supported hardware list for FC3 anywhere. Do you know where to find one. > > Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can > > run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? > No, if you have x86_64 OS, you need the x86_64 packages. This might be less > packages, if you're hooked on livna & Co. Actually I thought there were also i386 packages on the x86_64 install CD's. I have'nt downloaded and burned iso's yet but I see them when I look at the download sites under 'os'. > x86_64 has some fresh blood dripping down edge of the blade. > Most of things work, but you'll see less support when you'll run > into problems. E.g. you'll have trouble getting 3d acceleration going > with ATI's binary drivers with newish Radeons. > I've given up on my 9600, and installed an nVidia instead which > worked well. I've had build issues with openhbci stuff. Expect lots more > breakage if you're used to ./configure && make && make install litany. I will be getting an nvidia video card so I don't expect problems with 3d. And I don't expect the few apps I compile to give to many problems as I don't do any fancy stuff :) Thanks, Alexander From awol at home.nl Mon Dec 27 16:17:34 2004 From: awol at home.nl (Alexander Volovics) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:17:34 +0100 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> Message-ID: <20041227161734.GB5514@home.nl> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:17:52PM +0530, G. Vamsee Krishna wrote: > I've been using amd64 for the past 2 months. So my comments are based > mostly on my personal experiences and the problems I've solved as a > resident linux geek :-) Thanks for the reply. > > - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? > > Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without > > problems? > Yes. I installed FC3-i386 and then downloaded 64-bit FC2. I think I will travel this route too. First i386, to test the waters, and then 64-bit FC3. > > - Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 > > and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: > > hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. > > Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can > > run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? > You must've mistaked. I don't see any 32-bit stuff (atleast not many) in > my install CDs. The general softwares directory on redhat/fedora websites > has both the versions. I have not downloaded and burned the x86_64 iso's yet so I don't know what is on the actual installation 4 cd set. But when I look in the x86_64 'os' directory on any of the download sites, for example: download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/3/x86_64/os/Fedora/RPMS/ I see quite a lot of i386 packages among the x86_64 packages. So if they are not on the install cd's they were added to the download sites to make downloading i386 versions more easy I suppose. > If at all they are included only for compat reasons, I see no point why > you should be needing extra libs. Just the compat libs would do. This was something I did not understand. It might be better in this case to install first and see what happens before asking. > > Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without > > problems? > Yes. /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 can coexist without problems :-) Good. I should have expected this. > > - If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without > > problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? > I find my x86_64 perform a bit better than i686 (same machine - amd64). > Since I have no idea how to perform any benchmarks, I can't give you any > solid proofs. I can give you the output/run-times of some apps. I have just now found these reviews on anandtech with benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2213 http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2229 > Hope this helps. One final word, go for it!!! It's always better to stay a > step ahead... One step ahead and two steps back eh... :) Thanks again Alexander From chuck at wildrice.com Mon Dec 27 17:17:45 2004 From: chuck at wildrice.com (Chuck Rice) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:17:45 -0800 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <20041227145028.GP9221@leitl.org> References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> <20041227145028.GP9221@leitl.org> Message-ID: At 3:50 PM +0100 12/27/04, Eugen Leitl wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/ombN3avi7y/PqPc" >Content-Disposition: inline > >On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:37:20PM +0100, Alexander Volovics wrote: > >> In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have >> been reading up on possible problems. >> Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are >> contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading >> mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. >> >> - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? >> Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without >> problems? > >Check out the supported hardware list. My Asus A8V Deluxe doesn't seem to run >into problems (getting FC3 to boot with a mixed PATA/SATA can be tricky, as >you have to jiggle drive boot priority in BIOS). I have the same ASUS A8V Deluxe mobo. The install seems to go fine. System seems solid, but when I try to use apt or yum they seem to be very broken. Apt does not like the i386 and x86_64 duplicates. Yum has trouble with itself because of a prereq of Python24. With enough fiddling you can get around it, but for a newbie like me it has been a large learning curve. There are patches for yum (see but I have had no success so far. -Chuck- From gene at czarc.net Mon Dec 27 17:18:25 2004 From: gene at czarc.net (Gene Czarcinski) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:18:25 -0500 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <20041227161734.GB5514@home.nl> References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> <20041227161734.GB5514@home.nl> Message-ID: <200412271218.25302.gene@czarc.net> On Monday 27 December 2004 11:17, Alexander Volovics wrote: > I think I will travel this route too. First i386, to test the waters, > and then 64-bit FC3. I have both i386 and x86_64 version of FC3 installed on both an ASUS SK8V (Opteron 140) and a Compaq R3000z (Athlon64) and they both work well on both systems (it took some fiddling to get the 1920x1200 display to work on the R3000z but it does work). The OpenOffice.org application is the major 32 bit application that has not been ported to 64 bit yet. The 32 bit libraries, etc. are provided with the x86_64 system since you can run 32 bit applications and this is provided for compatibility. -- Gene From networkr0 at cfl.rr.com Tue Dec 28 00:47:11 2004 From: networkr0 at cfl.rr.com (Brian Chase) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:47:11 -0500 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> Message-ID: <41D0AD0F.8060805@cfl.rr.com> One issue not yet mentioned in this thread is Java. Java is painful to install, and instructions on the Java website are poor at best, confusing, switching between 32 bit instructions and 64-bit instructions. Right now, I don't have Java installed. I need a script that will take care of it all for me or just have it pre-installed out of the box. When will this happen? I don't have time for this crapola. It needs to just work! Sure, I understand that licensing issues may prohibit inclusion of Java in Linux, but why then is it free? Can't we all just put our heads together, throw the lawyers out of the room for an hour and fix this once and for all? Flash for x86-64 is non-existent. I haven't tried to replace my yum.conf file with the livna one, mainly because I'm afraid to get a bunch of unwanted 32 bit apps, another source of confusion. Would be nice if all the good apps you could get off of livna could just be included in the official repositories. I feel much of this "unofficial" business with some of the Fedora support pages is just justified paranoia of our sue-happy culture we have here in the USA.....Descending from my soap box.... Happy New Year to all! Brian Alexander Volovics wrote: >In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have >been reading up on possible problems. >Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are >contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading >mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. > >- Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? > Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without > problems? > >- Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 > and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: > hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. > Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can > run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? > And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation > install or do you add them if necessary? > If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for > all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add > extra i386 libraries? > Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without > problems? > >- Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to > a machine running FC3-x86_64. > >- If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without > problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? > >- I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 > 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of > any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? > >Alexander > > > From cochranb at speakeasy.net Tue Dec 28 01:10:19 2004 From: cochranb at speakeasy.net (Robert L Cochran) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:10:19 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: What to install on an amd64 machine?] Message-ID: <41D0B27B.8050400@speakeasy.net> Well, I downloaded this from Sun several weeks ago and unrolled it in my home directory without installing it system-wide because I was trying to figure out how to build a jpackage.org-style binary RPM that would install it. I ran into a problem, posted a query for help to their newsgroup, but never got a reply. I should have spent more time on it I suppose. One thing I don't understand is why the jpackage people feel the Sun installer installs Sun Java incorrectly -- or to put it another way, why should I want to prefer the jpackage.org packages over the standard Sun installation? After a little looking around on the jpackage website, and noting the extremely low support for 64 bit Java packages, another question quickly emerges: why should I wait for jpackage.org to get around to putting 64 bit packages together, when Sun already offers one I can install at this moment? But then again, I could have persisted in twiddling with 1.5.0 until the darn jpackage rpmbuild worked....that's the definition of being a 'contributor' versus an 'armchair quarterback'. [rlc at bobcp4 ~]$ ~/tmp/jdk1.5.0/bin/java -version java version "1.5.0" Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0-b64) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.5.0-b64, mixed mode) Bob Cochran Greenbelt, Maryland, USA Brian Chase wrote: > One issue not yet mentioned in this thread is Java. Java is painful > to install, and instructions on the Java website are poor at best, > confusing, switching between 32 bit instructions and 64-bit instructions. > > Right now, I don't have Java installed. I need a script that will > take care of it all for me or just have it pre-installed out of the > box. When will this happen? I don't have time for this crapola. It > needs to just work! Sure, I understand that licensing issues may > prohibit inclusion of Java in Linux, but why then is it free? Can't > we all just put our heads together, throw the lawyers out of the room > for an hour and fix this once and for all? > > Flash for x86-64 is non-existent. > > I haven't tried to replace my yum.conf file with the livna one, mainly > because I'm afraid to get a bunch of unwanted 32 bit apps, another > source of confusion. Would be nice if all the good apps you could get > off of livna could just be included in the official repositories. I > feel much of this "unofficial" business with some of the Fedora > support pages is just justified paranoia of our sue-happy culture we > have here in the USA.....Descending from my soap box.... > > Happy New Year to all! > > Brian > > > > Alexander Volovics wrote: > >> In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have >> been reading up on possible problems. >> Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are >> contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading >> mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. >> >> - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? >> Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without >> problems? >> >> - Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 >> and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: >> hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. >> Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can >> run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? >> And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation >> install or do you add them if necessary? >> If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for >> all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add >> extra i386 libraries? >> Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without >> problems? >> >> - Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to >> a machine running FC3-x86_64. >> >> - If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without >> problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? >> >> - I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 >> 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of >> any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? >> >> Alexander >> >> >> > From cochranb at speakeasy.net Tue Dec 28 01:10:53 2004 From: cochranb at speakeasy.net (Robert L Cochran) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:10:53 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: What to install on an amd64 machine?] Message-ID: <41D0B29D.8080004@speakeasy.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: What to install on an amd64 machine? Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:44:27 -0500 From: Robert L Cochran To: Alexander Volovics References: <20041227143720.GA4934 at home.nl> I have the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard with the Athlon 64 3500+ (the new chips built on 90 nanometer technology...that's the Winchester core I think) cpu. I installed FC3 x86_64 without any hesitation. Actually I've been using the x86_64 version of FC3 ever since it was in beta, starting with the 'test2' beta release. The AMD 64 has such superb performance that I have no plans to go back to the Intel platform. And I'm not missing anything. I have every single application that I had before. The difference is that the 64 bit processor is far, far faster and hence conserves my valuable time. I can literally do more. One thing that really opened my eyes is how fast MySQL (64 bit binaries) can crunch through tables with 110,000 rows. You really must install the latest BIOS update for the motherboard. Other than that, you should have no problems at all. Perhaps in a year I'll upgrade to a newer motherboard and a faster AMD CPU. For now, I am a very happy camper. Bob Cochran Greenbelt, Maryland, USA Alexander Volovics wrote: >In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have >been reading up on possible problems. >Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are >contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading >mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. > >- Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? > Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without > problems? > >- Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 > and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: > hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. > Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can > run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? > And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation > install or do you add them if necessary? > If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for > all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add > extra i386 libraries? > Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without > problems? > >- Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to > a machine running FC3-x86_64. > >- If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without > problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? > >- I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 > 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of > any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? > >Alexander > > > From Mika.Runolinna at nokia.com Tue Dec 28 11:16:40 2004 From: Mika.Runolinna at nokia.com (Runolinna Mika (Nokia-BI/Helsinki)) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:16:40 +0200 Subject: amd 64 cd-installation ISO-files corrupt at server? Message-ID: <1104232599.20498.6.camel@runolinn.ntc.nokia.com> Hi, I downloaded the four ISO-images for Fedora core 3 AMD and run md5sum against those. Only the disk 4 image matched. Assumably these images are corrupt on the server. 8de5904a3e7a7952d0d53419b8436bb0 *FC3-x86_64-disc1.iso b61b0eb7e0171837aeeff4f0054a4d79 FC3-x86_64-disc1.iso 921106e0d4480ea230fa40a6a17df493 *FC3-x86_64-disc2.iso 99dc12c7e8a93844a48a5675a9c07ec9 FC3-x86_64-disc2.iso 0bd97f929685131efd0b52e1700de4b3 *FC3-x86_64-disc3.iso 399b7ffd721ebb4244a02c34cdbb1b82 FC3-x86_64-disc3.iso f58b1de3b880df55dbbd37d143419226 *FC3-x86_64-disc4.iso f58b1de3b880df55dbbd37d143419226 FC3-x86_64-disc4.iso -- Mika Runolinna Configuration Owner ChoSEE Nokia BI ENAP/DDM Engineering Environments mika.runolinna at nokia.com +35850 4836249 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cochranb at speakeasy.net Tue Dec 28 12:24:56 2004 From: cochranb at speakeasy.net (Robert L Cochran) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 07:24:56 -0500 Subject: amd 64 cd-installation ISO-files corrupt at server? In-Reply-To: <1104232599.20498.6.camel@runolinn.ntc.nokia.com> References: <1104232599.20498.6.camel@runolinn.ntc.nokia.com> Message-ID: <41D15098.9090405@speakeasy.net> Download them again. They are not corrupt at the server. You have to download them as binary images rather than ASCII. Most problems with CD's come from incorrectly downloaded or incorrectly burned CDs. Once I learned how to download images properly, I stopped blaming the "server". Bob Cochran Runolinna Mika (Nokia-BI/Helsinki) wrote: > Hi, > > I downloaded the four ISO-images for Fedora core 3 AMD and run md5sum > against those. Only the disk 4 image matched. Assumably these images > are corrupt on the server. > > > 8de5904a3e7a7952d0d53419b8436bb0 *FC3-x86_64-disc1.iso > b61b0eb7e0171837aeeff4f0054a4d79 FC3-x86_64-disc1.iso > > 921106e0d4480ea230fa40a6a17df493 *FC3-x86_64-disc2.iso > 99dc12c7e8a93844a48a5675a9c07ec9 FC3-x86_64-disc2.iso > > 0bd97f929685131efd0b52e1700de4b3 *FC3-x86_64-disc3.iso > 399b7ffd721ebb4244a02c34cdbb1b82 FC3-x86_64-disc3.iso > > f58b1de3b880df55dbbd37d143419226 *FC3-x86_64-disc4.iso > f58b1de3b880df55dbbd37d143419226 FC3-x86_64-disc4.iso > > > >-- >Mika Runolinna >Configuration Owner ChoSEE >Nokia BI ENAP/DDM Engineering Environments >mika.runolinna at nokia.com >+35850 4836249 > From ericm at sfour.no-ip.com Tue Dec 28 20:15:38 2004 From: ericm at sfour.no-ip.com (Eric Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:15:38 -0500 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <41D0AD0F.8060805@cfl.rr.com> References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> <41D0AD0F.8060805@cfl.rr.com> Message-ID: <41D1BEEA.1060602@sfour.no-ip.com> Brian, What kind of problems are you having 'installing' java? It is a very easy install... Also if you need to use both 32bit and 64bit JVMs, is it a big problem to have a 32bit and 64bit JVM installed, and reference the appropriate one via your JAVA_HOME definition? Also, have you tried Blackdown? http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/java-linux/JDK-1.4.2/amd64/fcs/ Eric Brian Chase wrote: > One issue not yet mentioned in this thread is Java. Java is painful > to install, and instructions on the Java website are poor at best, > confusing, switching between 32 bit instructions and 64-bit instructions. > > Right now, I don't have Java installed. I need a script that will > take care of it all for me or just have it pre-installed out of the > box. When will this happen? I don't have time for this crapola. It > needs to just work! Sure, I understand that licensing issues may > prohibit inclusion of Java in Linux, but why then is it free? Can't > we all just put our heads together, throw the lawyers out of the room > for an hour and fix this once and for all? > > Flash for x86-64 is non-existent. > > I haven't tried to replace my yum.conf file with the livna one, mainly > because I'm afraid to get a bunch of unwanted 32 bit apps, another > source of confusion. Would be nice if all the good apps you could get > off of livna could just be included in the official repositories. I > feel much of this "unofficial" business with some of the Fedora > support pages is just justified paranoia of our sue-happy culture we > have here in the USA.....Descending from my soap box.... > > Happy New Year to all! > > Brian > > > > Alexander Volovics wrote: > >> In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have >> been reading up on possible problems. >> Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are >> contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading >> mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. >> >> - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? >> Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without >> problems? >> >> - Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 >> and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: >> hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. >> Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can >> run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? >> And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation >> install or do you add them if necessary? >> If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for >> all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add >> extra i386 libraries? >> Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without >> problems? >> >> - Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to >> a machine running FC3-x86_64. >> >> - If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without >> problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? >> >> - I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 >> 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of >> any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? >> >> Alexander >> >> >> > From networkr0 at cfl.rr.com Tue Dec 28 20:20:20 2004 From: networkr0 at cfl.rr.com (Brian Chase) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:20:20 -0500 Subject: What to install on an amd64 machine? In-Reply-To: <41D1BEEA.1060602@sfour.no-ip.com> References: <20041227143720.GA4934@home.nl> <41D0AD0F.8060805@cfl.rr.com> <41D1BEEA.1060602@sfour.no-ip.com> Message-ID: <41D1C004.9050307@cfl.rr.com> I'll give blackdown a try, thanks. Eric Mittelstaedt wrote: > Brian, > > What kind of problems are you having 'installing' java? It is a very > easy install... Also if you need to use both 32bit and 64bit JVMs, is > it a big problem to have a 32bit and 64bit JVM installed, and > reference the appropriate one via your JAVA_HOME definition? > > Also, have you tried Blackdown? > http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/java-linux/JDK-1.4.2/amd64/fcs/ > > Eric > > Brian Chase wrote: > >> One issue not yet mentioned in this thread is Java. Java is painful >> to install, and instructions on the Java website are poor at best, >> confusing, switching between 32 bit instructions and 64-bit >> instructions. >> >> Right now, I don't have Java installed. I need a script that will >> take care of it all for me or just have it pre-installed out of the >> box. When will this happen? I don't have time for this crapola. It >> needs to just work! Sure, I understand that licensing issues may >> prohibit inclusion of Java in Linux, but why then is it free? Can't >> we all just put our heads together, throw the lawyers out of the room >> for an hour and fix this once and for all? >> >> Flash for x86-64 is non-existent. >> >> I haven't tried to replace my yum.conf file with the livna one, >> mainly because I'm afraid to get a bunch of unwanted 32 bit apps, >> another source of confusion. Would be nice if all the good apps you >> could get off of livna could just be included in the official >> repositories. I feel much of this "unofficial" business with some of >> the Fedora support pages is just justified paranoia of our sue-happy >> culture we have here in the USA.....Descending from my soap box.... >> >> Happy New Year to all! >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> Alexander Volovics wrote: >> >>> In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have >>> been reading up on possible problems. >>> Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are >>> contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading >>> mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. >>> >>> - Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? >>> Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without >>> problems? >>> >>> - Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 >>> and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: >>> hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. >>> Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can >>> run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? >>> And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation >>> install or do you add them if necessary? >>> If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for >>> all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add >>> extra i386 libraries? >>> Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without >>> problems? >>> >>> - Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to >>> a machine running FC3-x86_64. >>> >>> - If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without >>> problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? >>> >>> - I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 >>> 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of >>> any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? >>> >>> Alexander >>> >>> >>> >> From joshua at iwsp.com Tue Dec 28 22:02:57 2004 From: joshua at iwsp.com (Joshua Jensen) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:02:57 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: What to install on an amd64 machine?] In-Reply-To: <41D0B29D.8080004@speakeasy.net> References: <41D0B29D.8080004@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <20041228220256.GC15094@iwsp.com> Ok... but install the 32bit version and see how much slower it is. I really doubt the speed is due to you using 64bits.... but I could be wrong. Athlon 64 3500+ running in 32bit mode is very fast as it is. Joshua On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:10:53PM -0500, Robert L Cochran wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: What to install on an amd64 machine? > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:44:27 -0500 > From: Robert L Cochran > To: Alexander Volovics > References: <20041227143720.GA4934 at home.nl> > > > > I have the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard with the Athlon 64 3500+ > (the new chips built on 90 nanometer technology...that's the Winchester > core I think) cpu. I installed FC3 x86_64 without any hesitation. > Actually I've been using the x86_64 version of FC3 ever since it was in > beta, starting with the 'test2' beta release. The AMD 64 has such superb > performance that I have no plans to go back to the Intel platform. And > I'm not missing anything. I have every single application that I had > before. The difference is that the 64 bit processor is far, far faster > and hence conserves my valuable time. I can literally do more. One thing > that really opened my eyes is how fast MySQL (64 bit binaries) can > crunch through tables with 110,000 rows. > > You really must install the latest BIOS update for the motherboard. > > Other than that, you should have no problems at all. > > Perhaps in a year I'll upgrade to a newer motherboard and a faster AMD > CPU. For now, I am a very happy camper. > > Bob Cochran > Greenbelt, Maryland, USA > > > Alexander Volovics wrote: > > >In 2 weeks time I will be getting an amd64 machine and I have > >been reading up on possible problems. > >Because the answers to the questions I would like answered are > >contaminated with hardware/software issues when googling or reading > >mailing lists I hope to get some unequivocal answers here. > > > >- Can you install FC3-i386 on an amd64 machine without problems? > > Can the FC3-i386 kernel and drivers handel the hardware without > > problems? > > > >- Looking at the packages contained in FC3-x86_64 I see both i386 > > and x86_64 versions for a lot of things. For example: > > hal-0.4.0-10.i386.rpm and hal-0.4.0-10.x86_64.rpm. > > Are the i386 versions included for 'compat' reasons, so you can > > run i386 apps under FC3-x86_64? > > And are they installed by default when doing a standard workstation > > install or do you add them if necessary? > > If they are available for 'compat' reasons are they sufficient for > > all i386 apps I would like to run or do you sometimes have to add > > extra i386 libraries? > > Can i386 libraries always coexist with x86_64 libraries without > > problems? > > > >- Do up2date/yum function faultlessly when adding i386 apps to > > a machine running FC3-x86_64. > > > >- If both FC3-i386 and FC3-x86_64 can run on an amd64 machine without > > problems are there significant advantages for the x86_64 version? > > > >- I will be getting a MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum board with an Athlon64 > > 3500+ socket 399 and an UDMA100 hard drive. Does anybody know of > > any special problems when installing either FC3-i386 or FC3-x86_64? > > > >Alexander > > > > > > > > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list -- Joshua Jensen joshua at iwsp.com "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?" From frauc at ace.ocn.ne.jp Wed Dec 29 03:23:53 2004 From: frauc at ace.ocn.ne.jp (T.T. Eiji Sato) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:23:53 +0900 Subject: Please make. Message-ID: <005f01c4ed55$d2b99fc0$35ab9c71@y> Please make Internet Radio...Monitor...portable...car accessary...in car navi.(World Wide Satellite.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cb at bo-mc.de Thu Dec 30 12:24:22 2004 From: cb at bo-mc.de (Carsten Boehlke) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:24:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: Building RPMs for i386 Message-ID: <36905.213.39.182.234.1104409462.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> Hi all. Does anybody know where I can find a HOWTO to build i386 RPMS on a amd64 machine? Carsten. From kevin.jackson at tradermedia.co.uk Thu Dec 30 13:13:52 2004 From: kevin.jackson at tradermedia.co.uk (Kevin Jackson) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:13:52 -0000 Subject: Building RPMs for i386 Message-ID: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A279@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> A good start is http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ But as a quick overview: rpmbuild -bBuildStage specfile --target=arch Kev -----Original Message----- From: amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Carsten Boehlke Sent: 30 December 2004 12:24 To: amd64-list at redhat.com Subject: Building RPMs for i386 Hi all. Does anybody know where I can find a HOWTO to build i386 RPMS on a amd64 machine? Carsten. -- amd64-list mailing list amd64-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list ----------------------------------------- ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Ironmail for the presence of computer viruses. www.ciphertrust.com ********************************************************************** From cb at bo-mc.de Thu Dec 30 13:38:53 2004 From: cb at bo-mc.de (Carsten Boehlke) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:38:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A279@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.u k> References: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A279@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> Message-ID: <38113.213.39.182.234.1104413933.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> Hi. I've tried your tip "rpmbuild --ba vsftpd.spec --target=i386" but I get this error: "cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set" What is my mistake? Carsten. > A good start is http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ > > But as a quick overview: > > rpmbuild -bBuildStage specfile --target=arch > > Kev > > -----Original Message----- > From: amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com] > On Behalf Of Carsten Boehlke > Sent: 30 December 2004 12:24 > To: amd64-list at redhat.com > Subject: Building RPMs for i386 > > > Hi all. > > Does anybody know where I can find a HOWTO to build i386 RPMS on a amd64 > machine? > > Carsten. > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list > > ----------------------------------------- > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the system > manager. > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > Ironmail for the presence of computer viruses. www.ciphertrust.com > ********************************************************************** > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list > > From kevin.jackson at tradermedia.co.uk Thu Dec 30 14:04:02 2004 From: kevin.jackson at tradermedia.co.uk (Kevin Jackson) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:04:02 -0000 Subject: Building RPMs for i386 Message-ID: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A27A@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> What does: uname -a And cat /proc/cpuinfo Bring back? Are you running 32-Bit RHEL? -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Boehlke [mailto:cb at bo-mc.de] Sent: 30 December 2004 13:39 To: Kevin Jackson Cc: amd64-list at redhat.com Subject: RE: Building RPMs for i386 Hi. I've tried your tip "rpmbuild --ba vsftpd.spec --target=i386" but I get this error: "cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set" What is my mistake? Carsten. > A good start is http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ > > But as a quick overview: > > rpmbuild -bBuildStage specfile --target=arch > > Kev > > -----Original Message----- > From: amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com > [mailto:amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com] > On Behalf Of Carsten Boehlke > Sent: 30 December 2004 12:24 > To: amd64-list at redhat.com > Subject: Building RPMs for i386 > > > Hi all. > > Does anybody know where I can find a HOWTO to build i386 RPMS on a > amd64 machine? > > Carsten. > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list > > ----------------------------------------- > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the system > manager. > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > Ironmail for the presence of computer viruses. www.ciphertrust.com > ********************************************************************** > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list > > ----------------------------------------- ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Ironmail for the presence of computer viruses. www.ciphertrust.com ********************************************************************** From cb at bo-mc.de Thu Dec 30 14:09:53 2004 From: cb at bo-mc.de (Carsten Boehlke) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:09:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A27A@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.u k> References: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A27A@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> Message-ID: <38860.213.39.182.234.1104415793.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> uname -a: Linux gambler 2.4.21-27.0.1.EL #1 Fri Dec 24 18:09:27 EST 2004 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux cpuinfo: processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+ stepping : 10 cpu MHz : 2001.208 cache size : 1024 KB fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow bogomips : 3984.58 TLB size : 1088 4K pages clflush size : 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts fid vid ttp Carsten. > What does: > > uname -a > > And > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > > Bring back? Are you running 32-Bit RHEL? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Boehlke [mailto:cb at bo-mc.de] > Sent: 30 December 2004 13:39 > To: Kevin Jackson > Cc: amd64-list at redhat.com > Subject: RE: Building RPMs for i386 > > > Hi. > > I've tried your tip "rpmbuild --ba vsftpd.spec --target=i386" > > but I get this error: > > "cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set" > > What is my mistake? > > Carsten. > > > >> A good start is http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ >> >> But as a quick overview: >> >> rpmbuild -bBuildStage specfile --target=arch >> >> Kev >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com >> [mailto:amd64-list-bounces at redhat.com] >> On Behalf Of Carsten Boehlke >> Sent: 30 December 2004 12:24 >> To: amd64-list at redhat.com >> Subject: Building RPMs for i386 >> >> >> Hi all. >> >> Does anybody know where I can find a HOWTO to build i386 RPMS on a >> amd64 machine? >> >> Carsten. >> >> -- >> amd64-list mailing list >> amd64-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> ********************************************************************** >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >> are addressed. >> If you have received this email in error please notify the system >> manager. >> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by >> Ironmail for the presence of computer viruses. www.ciphertrust.com >> ********************************************************************** >> >> -- >> amd64-list mailing list >> amd64-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list >> >> > > ----------------------------------------- > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the system > manager. > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > Ironmail for the presence of computer viruses. www.ciphertrust.com > ********************************************************************** > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list > > From arjanv at redhat.com Thu Dec 30 14:11:08 2004 From: arjanv at redhat.com (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:11:08 +0100 Subject: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <38113.213.39.182.234.1104413933.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> References: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A279@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> <38113.213.39.182.234.1104413933.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> Message-ID: <1104415868.4170.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 14:38 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > Hi. > > I've tried your tip "rpmbuild --ba vsftpd.spec --target=i386" > > but I get this error: > > "cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set" > > What is my mistake? if the rpm in question doesn't use the RPM CFLAGS but invents it's own, then it misses the -m32 compiler option needed. you might be able to do CC="gcc -m32" rpmbuild ..... but at that point it's pure luck -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From cb at bo-mc.de Thu Dec 30 15:11:25 2004 From: cb at bo-mc.de (Carsten Boehlke) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:11:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <1104415868.4170.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A279@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> <38113.213.39.182.234.1104413933.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> <1104415868.4170.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <40393.213.39.182.234.1104419485.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> Hm... It works for some RPMs but not for all. Is it generally possible to build i386 RPMs on a amd64 machine? Carsten. > On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 14:38 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I've tried your tip "rpmbuild --ba vsftpd.spec --target=i386" >> >> but I get this error: >> >> "cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set" >> >> What is my mistake? > > if the rpm in question doesn't use the RPM CFLAGS but invents it's own, > then it misses the -m32 compiler option needed. > you might be able to do > CC="gcc -m32" rpmbuild ..... > > but at that point it's pure luck > From arjanv at redhat.com Thu Dec 30 17:03:21 2004 From: arjanv at redhat.com (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:03:21 +0100 Subject: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <40393.213.39.182.234.1104419485.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> References: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A279@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> <38113.213.39.182.234.1104413933.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> <1104415868.4170.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <40393.213.39.182.234.1104419485.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> Message-ID: <1104426201.4170.22.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 16:11 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > Hm... It works for some RPMs but not for all. > Is it generally possible to build i386 RPMs on a amd64 machine? correct rpms you should be able to build. Unfortionately there are a lot of incorrect ones ;( (note: I usually only compiled the kernel this way, but then for i386, x86_64, ia64, s390, s390x, ppc and ppc64... so it IS possible ;) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From joshua at iwsp.com Fri Dec 31 05:07:02 2004 From: joshua at iwsp.com (Joshua Jensen) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:07:02 -0500 Subject: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <40393.213.39.182.234.1104419485.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> References: <571D396508328043BE6D0309DA2204890120A279@newl0010.nlw.autotrader.co.uk> <38113.213.39.182.234.1104413933.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> <1104415868.4170.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <40393.213.39.182.234.1104419485.53831.squirrel@webmailer.hosteurope.de> Message-ID: <20041231050701.GB13025@iwsp.com> I've been able to add -m32 to my compiles by using this: --define 'RPM_OPT_FLAGS=-O2 -g -m32' --target i386 But beware, the binary size is often incorrect when compared to "natively" compiled 32bit binaries. Not sure why really. Joshua On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 04:11:25PM +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > Hm... It works for some RPMs but not for all. > Is it generally possible to build i386 RPMs on a amd64 machine? > > Carsten. > > > > > On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 14:38 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > >> Hi. > >> > >> I've tried your tip "rpmbuild --ba vsftpd.spec --target=i386" > >> > >> but I get this error: > >> > >> "cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set" > >> > >> What is my mistake? > > > > if the rpm in question doesn't use the RPM CFLAGS but invents it's own, > > then it misses the -m32 compiler option needed. > > you might be able to do > > CC="gcc -m32" rpmbuild ..... > > > > but at that point it's pure luck > > > > -- > amd64-list mailing list > amd64-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list -- Joshua Jensen joshua at iwsp.com "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?" From cb at bo-mc.de Fri Dec 31 12:54:48 2004 From: cb at bo-mc.de (Carsten Boehlke) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:54:48 +0100 Subject: AW: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <20041231050701.GB13025@iwsp.com> Message-ID: <200412311331.iBVDVbmn001871@mx1.redhat.com> It is the same wether I use "--define 'RPM_OPT_FLAGS=-O2 -g -m32' --target i386" or "CC="gcc -m32" rpmbuild ..." In both cases I get errors: C compiler cannot create executables or cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set Does I use a wrong compiler? What was my mistake??? Carsten. > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Joshua Jensen [mailto:joshua at iwsp.com] > Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Dezember 2004 06:07 > An: Carsten Boehlke > Cc: amd64-list at redhat.com > Betreff: Re: Building RPMs for i386 > > I've been able to add -m32 to my compiles by using this: > > --define 'RPM_OPT_FLAGS=-O2 -g -m32' --target i386 > > But beware, the binary size is often incorrect when compared > to "natively" compiled 32bit binaries. Not sure why really. > > Joshua > > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 04:11:25PM +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > > Hm... It works for some RPMs but not for all. > > Is it generally possible to build i386 RPMs on a amd64 machine? > > > > Carsten. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 14:38 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > > >> Hi. > > >> > > >> I've tried your tip "rpmbuild --ba vsftpd.spec --target=i386" > > >> > > >> but I get this error: > > >> > > >> "cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set" > > >> > > >> What is my mistake? > > > > > > if the rpm in question doesn't use the RPM CFLAGS but > invents it's > > > own, then it misses the -m32 compiler option needed. > > > you might be able to do > > > CC="gcc -m32" rpmbuild ..... > > > > > > but at that point it's pure luck > > > > > > > -- > > amd64-list mailing list > > amd64-list at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list > > -- > Joshua Jensen > joshua at iwsp.com > "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them > out of meat?" > From arjanv at redhat.com Fri Dec 31 13:40:59 2004 From: arjanv at redhat.com (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:40:59 +0100 Subject: AW: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <200412311331.iBVDVbmn001871@mx1.redhat.com> References: <200412311331.iBVDVbmn001871@mx1.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1104500460.5402.22.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 13:54 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > It is the same wether I use "--define 'RPM_OPT_FLAGS=-O2 -g -m32' --target > i386" or "CC="gcc -m32" rpmbuild ..." > In both cases I get errors: > > C compiler cannot create executables > or > cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set > > Does I use a wrong compiler? What was my mistake??? did you install the 32 bit portion of gcc/glibc ?? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From cb at bo-mc.de Fri Dec 31 13:47:53 2004 From: cb at bo-mc.de (Carsten Boehlke) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:47:53 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <1104500460.5402.22.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <200412311347.iBVDlrdb030140@mx3.redhat.com> > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:arjanv at redhat.com] > Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Dezember 2004 14:41 > An: Carsten Boehlke > Cc: 'Joshua Jensen'; amd64-list at redhat.com > Betreff: Re: AW: Building RPMs for i386 > > On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 13:54 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > > It is the same wether I use "--define 'RPM_OPT_FLAGS=-O2 -g -m32' > > --target i386" or "CC="gcc -m32" rpmbuild ..." > > In both cases I get errors: > > > > C compiler cannot create executables > > or > > cc1: CPU you selected does not support x86-64 instruction set > > > > Does I use a wrong compiler? What was my mistake??? > > did you install the 32 bit portion of gcc/glibc ?? > Good question. Which package is it? From arjanv at redhat.com Fri Dec 31 14:05:09 2004 From: arjanv at redhat.com (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:05:09 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: Building RPMs for i386 In-Reply-To: <200412311347.iBVDlrdb030140@mx3.redhat.com> References: <200412311347.iBVDlrdb030140@mx3.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1104501909.5402.27.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 14:47 +0100, Carsten Boehlke wrote: > > > > did you install the 32 bit portion of gcc/glibc ?? > > > > Good question. Which package is it? you need at minimum: libgcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.i386.rpm glibc-devel-2.3.3-74.i386.rpm (and fwiw the methods shown work, even without special hacks; on my FC3 box I can happily compile my own rpm with --target i386 ) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: