On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 22:05 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
Karl S. Katzke wrote:
First of all, I just want to say *again* how happy I am with CentOS. Across our boxes and our clients boxes, we're running it on more than 20 machines at the moment and it's by far the most painless OS to administer in detail that I've ever used. (Of course, I'm an old Slak hat, but ...) Thanks so much to the community and the maintainers.
We've recently run into a problem with a dual-opteron system that is running LTSP and serving up X and Firefox to a whole bunch of diskless clients. We're using the x86-64 build of CentOS, with the appropriate Firefox package. The client users have all been asking for Flash, since many websites are unusable without Flash these days ... but there's no 64-bit build of the Flash plugin. (Thanks, Macromedia! You suck!)
What's the best way to provide Flash (and maybe Java?) with Firefox on this server box? How big will the performance hit be from running non-64 bit packages? Any specific tips & hints?
Thanks!
-Karl Katzke _______________________________________________
You could run the 32-bit Firefox & 32-bit plugins, they are *supposed* to work seamlessly under the x86_64 OS. YMMV & all that. I have seen much talk about this on the SuSE AMD64 list, and this recommendation has floated out more than once.
Right ... the only option would be to remove the x86_64 firefox and install the i386 one ... but that might require MANY other i386 libraries. (I can't test it here).
Tell them to get over it is another option :)
Should not be a huge performance issue ... at least I haven't noticed any earth shattering performance enhancements between the x86_64 and i386 distros when installed on x86_64 machines (that one could feel via the GUI screen).
Unfortunately, telling them to get over it ain't anywhere near an option here. If it was my office ... well, I've worked without flash for aeons because I don't like it and I just don't visit sites that use it exclusively. But this client of mine is a sales company and needs to visit these sites.
I guess we'll work on it over the weekend to see if we can solve the dependency nightmare and get it up and running. It's too bad we don't have another 64-bit system hanging around to test on. Thanks!
-Karl Katzke
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 10:08 -0700, karl@streetlampsoftware.com wrote:
Unfortunately, telling them to get over it ain't anywhere near an option here. If it was my office ... well, I've worked without flash for aeons because I don't like it and I just don't visit sites that use it exclusively. But this client of mine is a sales company and needs to visit these sites. I guess we'll work on it over the weekend to see if we can solve the dependency nightmare and get it up and running. It's too bad we don't have another 64-bit system hanging around to test on. Thanks!
I've perfected my Firefox/Multimedia i386 setup on x86-64. But I can't remember the full package list I used. I should have documented this for future use.
Does anyone know how to easily list the arch of packages on a system? I can't seem to figure out something from "rpm" at the CLI. Yum perhaps?
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 02:29 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
I've perfected my Firefox/Multimedia i386 setup on x86-64. But I can't remember the full package list I used. I should have documented this for future use. Does anyone know how to easily list the arch of packages on a system? I can't seem to figure out something from "rpm" at the CLI. Yum perhaps?
Okay, I think I've got it!
"yum list extras" will list all RPMs install that aren't in any repositories. Since I'm only using the base x86-64 repositories (Fedora Core, Extras and Livna.ORG), here is what ix86 packages I have installed outside of those (although I have possibly _uninstalled_ some x86_64 packages too):
Fedora Core: aalib.i386 1.4.0-0.rc5.3 installed firefox.i386 1.0.6-1.1.fc3 installed lirc.i386 0.7.1-1 installed mozplugger.i386 1.6.2-1 installed xmms.i386 1:1.2.10-9 installed xmms-mp3.i386 1.2.10-0.lvn.3.3 installed xmms-flac.i386 1.1.0-7 installed
Livna.ORG: faad2.i386 2.0-0.lvn.3.3 installed lame.i386 3.96.1-0.lvn.1.3 installed lame-devel.i386 3.96.1-0.lvn.1.3 installed libdvdcss.i386 1.2.8-0.lvn.5.3 installed libdvdcss-devel.i386 1.2.8-0.lvn.5.3 installed libdvdnav.i386 0.1.10-0.lvn.1.3 installed libdvdnav-devel.i386 0.1.10-0.lvn.1.3 installed libdvdplay.i386 1.0.1-0.lvn.3.3 installed libdvdplay-devel.i386 1.0.1-0.lvn.3.3 installed libdvdread.i386 0.9.4-0.lvn.1.3 installed libdvdread-devel.i386 0.9.4-0.lvn.1.3 installed libmad.i386 0.15.1-0.lvn.1.b.3 installed mplayer.i386 1.0-0.lvn.0.18.pre6a.3 installed xmms-mp3.i386 1.2.10-0.lvn.3.3 installed xvidcore.i386 1.0.3-0.lvn.1.3 installed xvidcore-devel.i386 1.0.3-0.lvn.1.3 installed
3rd Party: AdobeReader_enu.i386 7.0.0-1 installed flash-plugin.i386 7.0.25-1 installed jre.i586 1.5.0_02-fcs installed
With those RPMs installed _outside_ the normal x86-64 Fedora Core, Extras and Livna.ORG repositories, I get all the browsing goodies -- from audio/video playback right in Firefox, to Flash, Java and PDFs.
-- Bryan
P.S. For indemification (licensing) issues at a company, I would _not_ install lame-*, libdvdplay-* or xmms-mp3.
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 02:29 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Does anyone know how to easily list the arch of packages on a system? I can't seem to figure out something from "rpm" at the CLI.
I have the following in ~/.rpmmacros:
# Change default RPM query format to show ARCH %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Example: # rpm -q glibc glibc-2.3.4-2.9.i686 glibc-2.3.4-2.9.x86_64
Can do something similar from the command-line: $ rpm -q --queryformat='%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n' openldap openldap-2.2.13-2.i386 openldap-2.2.13-2.x86_64
While OT - A sometimes-useful variant: $ rpm -qa --queryformat='%{epoch}:%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n' aspell 12:aspell-0.50.5-3.fc3.x86_64 12:aspell-0.50.5-3.fc3.i386
Phil
[ I fail to see how this is "off-topic"? A new thread, maybe, but "off-topic" for the list? ]
Phil Schaffner Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov wrote:
I have the following in ~/.rpmmacros: # Change default RPM query format to show ARCH %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Rohan Walsh rohan_walsh@yahoo.com.au wrote:
rpm -qa --qf %{NAME}.%{ARCH}\n |grep i386
Thanx.
BTW, if you saw my post, I found a _better_ way to tell me what RPMs I've loaded that are _not_ in the YUM repositories -- Fedora Core, Extras and Livna.ORG, as I have configured.
# yum list extras
That made it ultra-simple to get just what I had added, which was the i386/i586 RPMs from Fedora Core/Extras (basic Firefox, a few others), Livna.ORG (most of the multimedia add-ons) and 3rd parties (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia Flash, Sun Java Run-time).
BTW, I should have posted my /usr/lib/modules/firefox[-1.0.6]/plugins directory. I will do that early next week when I have access to my Athlon 64 system again.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
[ I fail to see how this is "off-topic"? A new thread, maybe, but "off-topic" for the list? ]
I agree with OT, your post had little use for someone who uses CentOS.
Phil Schaffner Philip.R.Schaffner@nasa.gov wrote:
I have the following in ~/.rpmmacros: # Change default RPM query format to show ARCH %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
That made it ultra-simple to get just what I had added, which was the i386/i586 RPMs from Fedora Core/Extras (basic Firefox, a few others), Livna.ORG (most of the multimedia add-ons) and 3rd parties (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Reader, Macromedia Flash, Sun Java Run-time).
I am sure you are aware of the fact that using these repo's on a CentOS Machine will cause you more damage than most people really want. Expect to reinstall the OS if you have those repo's enabled and run through a few pkg install cycles. And dont expect CentOS to provide you with any useful updates anymore.
How about a list of pkgs and dep's required to get i386 Multimedia working well on a x86_64 CentOS Machine ?
- KB
Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
I agree with OT, your post had little use for someone who uses CentOS.
I was trying to find out how to best spit out what i386 RPMs I had loaded on x86-64 and is VERY APPLICABLE TO THOSE OF US RUNNING DESKTOPS/WORKSTATIONS WHERE WE NEED I386 BINARY COMPATIBILITY!!!
Maybe some of you have not yet experienced the x86-64 port, but x86-64 binaries canNOT call i386 libraries/plug-ins and vice-versa.
After all, I was trying to help someone else with this exact issue. But in the end, I did post how to use "YUM" to list all of the packages that I had loaded that were not in the _stock_ repositories which is _very_applicable_ to CentOS, CentOS Plus, CentOS Extras, etc... with "yum
At this point, I am going to *** HORDE MY KNOWLEDGE *** because I'm sick and tired of the IGNORANCE OF SOME PEOPLE who think something is off-topic when it's *CORE* to RHEL/CENTOS. I don't know how many times I've posted something and people thought it was off-topic when it was only viewed that way because of their *IGNORANCE* -- not mine. ;->
Think about that for a moment. I know I have posted things off-topic before (e.g., server hardware), but some things that have 100% to do with maintaining i386/binary/libraries on the x86-64 are 100% on-topic IMHO! Again, maybe some of you haven't deal with a desktop/workstation where they are -- even I hadn't on x86-64 servers _until_ I started deploying x86-64 desktops, but I'm tired of this "attitude" based on the the *IGNORANCE* of some people.
I am sure you are aware of the fact that using these repo's on a CentOS Machine will cause you more damage than most people really want.
You can use CentOS i386, CentOS Plus i386, CentOS Extras i386, maybe DAG. to find the _equivalents_. I was _not_ advocating he use my Fedora repositories. I was saying here are the packages _not_ in Fedora Core, Extras and Livna.ORG that you will probably find in the CentOS equivalents.
How about a list of pkgs and dep's required to get i386 Multimedia working well on a x86_64 CentOS Machine ?
No, because that would be "off-topic" -- especially if I asked how to do it with RPM/YUM which seems to be "off-topic."
I'm outta here.
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
I agree with OT, your post had little use for someone who uses CentOS.
I was trying to find out how to best spit out what i386 RPMs I had loaded on x86-64 and is VERY APPLICABLE TO THOSE OF US RUNNING DESKTOPS/WORKSTATIONS WHERE WE NEED I386 BINARY COMPATIBILITY!!!
My reply to your post is heading off-list.
How about a list of pkgs and dep's required to get i386 Multimedia working well on a x86_64 CentOS Machine ?
No, because that would be "off-topic"
Interestingly, you would consider actually replying to the OP as off-topic :) Good to know.
- KB
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
I certainly hope you don't quit over this - some of your emails are OT or not interesting to me, but others are very interesting and stuff I didn't know... And you can't expect every mail on such a list to be interesting... (I delete 80-90% of CentOS traffic without reading it based on topic header all the time [partially depending on how busy I an]).
No, because that would be "off-topic"
Interestingly, you would consider actually replying to the OP as off-topic :) Good to know.
He was being ironic... Jeez.
Cheers, MaZe.
Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
No, because that would be "off-topic"
Interestingly, you would consider actually replying to the OP as off-topic :) Good to know.
He was being ironic...
And me .. amused :)
- K
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
I agree with OT, your post had little use for someone who uses CentOS.
I don't know how many times I've posted something and people thought it was off-topic when it was only viewed that way because of their *IGNORANCE* -- not mine. ;->
Now would be a good time to become paranoia :)
Insert your conspiracy theory here <<
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 22:11 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
I agree with OT, your post had little use for someone who uses CentOS.
I don't know how many times I've posted something and people thought it was off-topic when it was only viewed that way because of their *IGNORANCE* -- not mine. ;->
As the one who originally introduced "OT" to the thread subject, I would like to apologize for any unintended offense to Bryan. I meant OT for the thread, not the list, and was glad of the rare opportunity to ANSWER a question from him. :-)
Now would be a good time to become paranoia :)
Insert your conspiracy theory here <<
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean nobody's out to get you! :-)
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 15:53 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
I am sure you are aware of the fact that using these repo's on a CentOS Machine will cause you more damage than most people really want. Expect to reinstall the OS if you have those repo's enabled and run through a few pkg install cycles. And dont expect CentOS to provide you with any useful updates anymore.
Personally, I would find my CentOS4 desktops much less useful without Dag and some other 3rd party repos (particularly karan.org and Dries), and I certainly would have a hard time getting the wife and kids weened from the Redmond OS without Java, Flash, downloaded music players, DVD support, etc. I realize there is always some risk involved with deviating from the core distro, and avoid that on servers and critical machines, but am willing to accept the risks for non-critical desktops. Worst case, one can always do a fresh install, but I have been through quite a few cycles of updates with --enablerepo=<various_selected_3rd_party_repos> for a number of personal and work machines without breaking things that badly (at least on CentOS - FC is another story :-).
Judging from recent list traffic, many others have the same needs and appreciate help on those topics. (Just wish some of them would search the archives.)
Phil
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 08:08 -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org wrote:
I agree with OT, your post had little use for someone who uses CentOS.
I disagree, for the reasons Bryan gives here:
I was trying to find out how to best spit out what i386 RPMs I had loaded on x86-64 and is VERY APPLICABLE TO THOSE OF US RUNNING DESKTOPS/WORKSTATIONS WHERE WE NEED I386 BINARY COMPATIBILITY!!!
Maybe some of you have not yet experienced the x86-64 port, but x86-64 binaries canNOT call i386 libraries/plug-ins and vice-versa.
This is very much on-topic for this list. In fact, it's the main reason I read it.
At this point, I am going to *** HORDE MY KNOWLEDGE *** because I'm sick and tired of the IGNORANCE OF SOME PEOPLE who think something is off-topic when it's *CORE* to RHEL/CENTOS.
Please don't; just ignore the nitwits who don't realize that not everyone is stuck using i386. ;-)
And thanks for posting that list of "off-road" rpms needed for decent browsing on x86_64.
Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 02:29 -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Does anyone know how to easily list the arch of packages on a system? I can't seem to figure out something from "rpm" at the CLI.
I have the following in ~/.rpmmacros:
# Change default RPM query format to show ARCH %_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
While OT - A sometimes-useful variant: $ rpm -qa --queryformat='%{epoch}:%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n' aspell 12:aspell-0.50.5-3.fc3.x86_64 12:aspell-0.50.5-3.fc3.i386
If you are looking to track Origin of a package, the %{vendor} and/or %{packager} tag might come in handy.
- KB
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Dag Wieers -
David Johnston -
Karanbir Singh -
karl＠streetlampsoftware.com -
Maciej Żenczykowski -
Phil Schaffner -
Phil Schaffner -
Rohan Walsh