From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FC71387C9 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:43:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6F66E08A6; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0119.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC40BE08A4 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:43:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from unb.ca (142.162.44.144) by CY1PR0401MB1194.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (25.160.165.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.118.21; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:43:20 +0000 To: From: "David M. Fellows" Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Did devs change phonon flags without rev'ing package? In-Reply-To: <20150331164044.GC26091@crud> References: <20150330170458.67fbe3b2a92184b60e150742@comcast.net> <20150331164044.GC26091@crud> Comments: In-reply-to Barry Schwartz message dated "Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:40:44 -0500." X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 24.4.1 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:43:13 -0300 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [142.162.44.144] X-ClientProxiedBy: CO2PR11CA0026.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.141.242.164) To CY1PR0401MB1194.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (25.160.165.11) Authentication-Results: lists.gentoo.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1194; X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: BMV:1;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(42186005)(46102003)(66066001)(40100003)(2950100001)(62966003)(122386002)(450100001)(47776003)(50986999)(74482002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(74316001)(86362001)(92566002)(33656002)(93886004)(77156002)(50226001)(76576001)(107886001)(48376002)(50466002)(76176999)(2351001)(87976001)(7744002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1194;H:unb.ca;FPR:;SPF:None;MLV:sfv;LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010);SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1194;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1194; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0532BF6DC2 X-OriginatorOrg: unb.ca X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2015 19:43:20.9910 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0401MB1194 X-Archives-Salt: 4a60ef0f-cfa4-4459-ac58-b473093e6386 X-Archives-Hash: a8c91f917cd67c5e47d4a673f2d21048 On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:40:44 -0500 Barry Schwartz wrote - > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> skribis: > > > Is it still necessary to be using multilib? > > > > If you're running 100% freedomware, almost certainly not ... > > Firefox binaries are 32-bit. QED. More accurately: 32-bit Firefox binaries are 32 bit 64-bit Firefox binaries are 64 bit >From firefox-bin-35.0.ebuild (others are similar): SRC_URI="${SRC_URI} amd64? ( ${MOZ_FTP_URI}/${MOZ_PV}/linux-x86_64/en-US/${MOZ_P}.tar.bz2 -> ${PN}_x86_64-${PV}.tar.bz2 ) x86? ( ${MOZ_FTP_URI}/${MOZ_PV}/linux-i686/en-US/${MOZ_P}.tar.bz2 -> ${PN}_i686-${PV}.tar.bz2 )" QED. > > (I rarely run Firefox binaries or even keep them installed, but it > does occasionally happen.) > Dave F