Re: firefox.i386 in x86_64 repo
Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch <at> dell.com>
2006-08-01 02:54:03 GMT
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:48:38PM -0500, Jay Cliburn wrote:
> I'm indifferent to browser make and model, myself; Firefox just seems to
> be in vogue and I'm accustomed to it now. But the enduring headache for
> a number of FC x86_64 users is the absence of 64-bit Macromedia Flash
> and Sun Java plugins -- despite the availability gnash and blackdown and
> nspluginwrapper -- and fedoraforum is chock full of people trying to
> figure out how to add i386 repos and install and keep up to date a
> "foreign" arch package in x86_64. For some AMD64 owners, the decision
> whether to use FCx.i386 or FCx.x86_64 is swayed to i386 by the simple
> desire to avoid the wrestling match with 32-bit Firefox and its plugins
> in a 64-bit Fedora. (A cursory search of the AMD64 forum at fedoraforum
> will bear out this assertion.)
> I wrote a howto at fedoraforum that lays out the steps to get 32-bit
> Firefox installed with Flash and Sun Java in x86_64, but I'm
> occasionally astonished at just how badly people can muck it up by not
> following the instructions to the letter, and sometimes they run into
> gnarly dependency problems that may or may not be of their own making.
> Having 32-bit Firefox in the x86_64 repo significantly simplifies the
> whole process, and would be cheered by many a new Fedora/AMD64 user.
Much as it is highly annoying, other distributions such as OpenSuSE
have started shipping only the 32-bit Firefox or equivalent on AMD64,
and not shipping a 64-bit Firefox at all, for exactly this reason.
Idea being work must happen in the background to get 64-bit Java and
other plugins to work, but until then, don't dork over your end
users. You loose a lot of bully pulpit, but you make for happier users.