[gentoo-amd64] Re: Did devs change phonon flags without rev'ing package?

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

David M. Fellows posted on Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:43:13 -0300 as excerpted:

> 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.

Yes.

Since I always build from source it doesn't directly affect me, but I 
recall reading an article (FLOSS commentary) sometime last year I 
believe, that wondered why Mozilla still insisted on directing Linux 
binary downloaders to the 32-bit binary in this day and age, when the 64-
bit binary is available.

There's something about support as well; apparently Mozilla supports 
users running the 32-bit binary to a larger extent than they do the ones 
running the 64-bit binary, too.  Maybe it has to do with the way 
proprietary plugins (like flash) are supported... obviously not something 
someone like me who couldn't legally (due to EULA) run such things if 
they tried would be too concerned about or likely to know the details 
of...

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman