Why both i386 and X86_64

[Bob Chiodini]

Thanks Joshua.

I had not thought about there being libraries in the packages as well as
executables (duh).

Bob...

On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 15:32 -0500, Joshua Jensen wrote:
> Because you may have some 32bit binaries that need to use those 32bits
> libs/whatever... hence having some of the basic packages exist in both
> bit-length versions.
> 
> Joshua
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:14:02PM -0500, Bob Chiodini wrote:
> > I'm new to this list and the AMD 64 bit architecture and noticed during
> > today's update of hal and associated dependencies that both the i386 and
> > x86_64 RPMs were installed.  This does not seem to be the case for all
> > RPMs.  hald is ELF 64-bit, so I'll assume the correct one is running.
> > 
> > Why both RPMs?
> > 
> > >From yum:
> > 
> > Transaction Listing:
> >   Update: hal.i386 0:0.4.7-1.FC3
> >   Update: hal.x86_64 0:0.4.7-1.FC3
> >   Update: hal-devel.x86_64 0:0.4.7-1.FC3
> >   Update: hal-gnome.x86_64 0:0.4.7-1.FC3
> > Downloading Packages:
> > hal-0.4.7-1.FC3.i386.rpm  100% |=========================| 155 kB    00:15
> > hal-0.4.7-1.FC3.x86_64.rp 100% |=========================| 171 kB    00:11
> > hal-gnome-0.4.7-1.FC3.x86 100% |=========================|  78 kB    00:08
> > hal-devel-0.4.7-1.FC3.x86 100% |=========================|  98 kB    00:07
> > Running Transaction
> > Updating: hal 100 % done 1/8
> > warning: /etc/hal/device.d/50-fstab-sync.hal created as /etc/hal/device.d/50-fstab-sync.hal.rpmnew
> > Updating: hal 100 % done 2/8
> > Updating: hal-gnome 100 % done 3/8
> > Updating: hal-devel 100 % done 4/8
> > Completing update for hal  - 5/8
> > Completing update for hal  - 6/8
> > Completing update for hal-gnome  - 7/8
> > Completing update for hal-devel  - 8/8
> > 
> > Updated: hal.i386 0:0.4.7-1.FC3 hal.x86_64 0:0.4.7-1.FC3 hal-devel.x86_64 0:0.4.7-1.FC3 hal-gnome.x86_64 0:0.4.7-1.FC3
> > Complete!
> > 
> > Bob...
> >