During last update packets pidgin and libpurple were updated while "yum update"-ing
Is it a common and normal thing that both x86_64 and i386 arch rpms are installed during update? This not the first time.
Alexx wrote:
During last update packets pidgin and libpurple were updated while "yum update"-ing
Is it a common and normal thing that both x86_64 and i386 arch rpms are installed during update? This not the first time.
Sort of ...
If the i386 items were installed before, then yes, they will be updated.
The x86_64 tree has x86_64 and i386 rpms in it, this is by design (of upstream). I personally like the Debian approach for this (make them totally separate distros and don't mix them).
There are some programs that are not available on x86_64 ... though in CentOS-5 there are less of them.
Java and Flash plugins for mozilla/firefox are some.
You can add this to your .rpmmacros (create it if it does not exist in your home directory):
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Now you can use RPM to see which i[3,5,6]86 rpms are installed ... like this:
rpm -qa | grep 'i[3,5,6]86'
If you have x86_64 rpms for all these, you can remove the i[3,5,6]86 versions if you want to.
The bottom line, you can have both without problem ... though I don't normally do x86_64 on workstations.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On 7/2/07, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
You can add this to your .rpmmacros (create it if it does not exist in your home directory):
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
And if you want this to be systemwide, add the line to /etc/rpm/macros (create it if it does not exist).
Akemi
I was interested to see that Firefox java and flash plugins aren't available in x86_64. Does this explain why flash and/or java plugins aren't working on my Centos 5 x86_64 installation. If I go to (say) you-tube - it tells me I don't have the latest flash player - or don't have java enabled. If I follow their instructions on installing them - it tells me they are already installed.
Anyone else found this - and found a solution?
Thanks
Richard.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Alexx wrote:
During last update packets pidgin and libpurple were updated while "yum update"-ing
Is it a common and normal thing that both x86_64 and i386 arch rpms are installed during update? This not the first time.
Sort of ...
If the i386 items were installed before, then yes, they will be updated.
The x86_64 tree has x86_64 and i386 rpms in it, this is by design (of upstream). I personally like the Debian approach for this (make them totally separate distros and don't mix them).
There are some programs that are not available on x86_64 ... though in CentOS-5 there are less of them.
Java and Flash plugins for mozilla/firefox are some.
You can add this to your .rpmmacros (create it if it does not exist in your home directory):
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Now you can use RPM to see which i[3,5,6]86 rpms are installed ... like this:
rpm -qa | grep 'i[3,5,6]86'
If you have x86_64 rpms for all these, you can remove the i[3,5,6]86 versions if you want to.
The bottom line, you can have both without problem ... though I don't normally do x86_64 on workstations.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 7/2/07, Richard Chapman rchapman@aardvark.com.au wrote:
I was interested to see that Firefox java and flash plugins aren't available in x86_64. Does this explain why flash and/or java plugins aren't working on my Centos 5 x86_64 installation. If I go to (say) you-tube - it tells me I don't have the latest flash player - or don't have java enabled. If I follow their instructions on installing them - it tells me they are already installed.
Anyone else found this - and found a solution?
Yes - use the i386 version of Firefox and the plugins will work. I use the i386 version of SeaMonkey as I had the same problems with the x86_64 bit version, and they work fine.
mhr
That certainly explains my firefox plugin problem. yum list | grep firefox tells me I have both the i386 and x86_64 versions of firefox installed - but how do I tell gnome to use the i386 version?
My ignorance never ceases to amaze me...;-)
Richard.
Mark Hull-Richter wrote:
On 7/2/07, Richard Chapman rchapman@aardvark.com.au wrote:
I was interested to see that Firefox java and flash plugins aren't available in x86_64. Does this explain why flash and/or java plugins aren't working on my Centos 5 x86_64 installation. If I go to (say) you-tube - it tells me I don't have the latest flash player - or don't have java enabled. If I follow their instructions on installing them - it tells me they are already installed.
Anyone else found this - and found a solution?
Yes - use the i386 version of Firefox and the plugins will work. I use the i386 version of SeaMonkey as I had the same problems with the x86_64 bit version, and they work fine.
mhr _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 7/3/07, Richard Chapman rchapman@aardvark.com.au wrote:
That certainly explains my firefox plugin problem. yum list | grep firefox tells me I have both the i386 and x86_64 versions of firefox installed - but how do I tell gnome to use the i386 version?
My ignorance never ceases to amaze me...;-)
Richard.
Either remove the x86_64 version, or edit /usr/bin/firefox and force it to use the i386 one.
Akemi
-
Akemi Yagi -
Alexx -
Johnny Hughes -
Mark Hull-Richter -
Richard Chapman