| |||||||||||||
Quotes of the weekQuotes of the weekPosted Jun 14, 2012 22:27 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)In reply to: Quotes of the week by jschrod Parent article: Quotes of the week
> And no luck at all on RHEL.
Hmm? I have i686 and x86_64 packages installed at the same time on Fedora and I remember RHEL 5 being the same. I haven't played with RHEL 6 enough to remember.
(Log in to post comments)
Quotes of the week Posted Jun 14, 2012 23:50 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]
On an x86_64 system, you can install i686 packages. But then you have already base x86_64 userland packages installed, especially those with shared libs. Additional package installations will cause conflicts with those base-installed packages.
On an i686 installation, no x86_64 kernel package is available, like it is in Debian. "yum list 'kernel*'" tells so.
Of course, you can always create your own completely-self-made-up package list and use Anaconda or AutoYast or such. But this is what I called "roll-your-own installation" above, then you create a spin. It is not an installation mode that is supported by a distribution out-of-the box -- which is what I was asking for.
I don't deny that it ain't possible; after all, one can also always roll one's own kernel and install that. I hinted to the fact that such an installation mode is not widespread because it is *not a mode commonly offered by distributions*.
Quotes of the week Posted Jun 17, 2012 8:29 UTC (Sun) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715) [Link]
> On an x86_64 system, you can install i686 packages. But then you have already base x86_64 userland packages installed, especially those with shared libs. Additional package installations will cause conflicts with those base-installed packages.
That's just not true.
Name examples of what you mean. You might just have hit some kind of packing bug for a specific library but they are designed to not conflict and it works fine for me here.
|
|||||||||||||