From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S0hPF-0005Wg-4a for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:44:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AED2DE07FC; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5187FE0A86 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lahd3 with SMTP id d3so2351020lah.40 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:43:31 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paul.hartman@gmail.com designates 10.152.125.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.152.125.20; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paul.hartman@gmail.com designates 10.152.125.20 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paul.hartman@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=paul.hartman@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.152.125.20]) by 10.152.125.20 with SMTP id mm20mr2786734lab.6.1330037011376 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:43:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=dIOrtEGEnF1foutpOJHZX6EsKcQO5uHe5t/UbYisPKE=; b=qIzWV0XX8/ORN+KSPUF1/TGgZDCJRSr3TcaD65k65oZSKJhcHSXPp9qvMjseh2QsaP zFlqJNjzwHF0hfMaSyUeAZCFi8q+vH3k57VMaKgmjih7iza33ubzsepAF7qdFzvHiQ9D l/dbMxv2lPK90k8K7IMpr1duT8Fy2RUD/zaDQ= Received: by 10.152.125.20 with SMTP id mm20mr2348463lab.6.1330037011279; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:43:31 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: paul.hartman@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.27.131 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:43:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120223222139.GA8533@Gee-Mi-Ni> References: <20120222002227.GA3081@ca.inter.net> <20120223102240.GB6656@Gee-Mi-Ni.epfl.ch> <201202231044.51216.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20120223202429.GB19989@Gee-Mi-Ni> <20120223222139.GA8533@Gee-Mi-Ni> From: Paul Hartman Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:43:11 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ovGX9z2gxzyV59wcuFfKbWZhlC4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox-10.0.1 fails to compile on x86 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 3458408b-f9cc-4257-b218-2a7d11542390 X-Archives-Hash: 0dd3ece8d0a8d891f5c11f828c342e97 On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Willie WY Wong wrote: > Actually, why is it that upstream does not provide 64bit binaries? (It > always bothers me to see my wife's Windows 7 machines running a copy > of firefox marked, in parenthesis, 32 bit.) They're working on it... They actually have started generating 64-bit nightly builds for Windows and Linux: https://nightly.mozilla.org/ If I had to guess what the hold-up has been: User confusion about which version to use (32-bit will work for everyone, 64-bit won't) Plugin availability (even Adobe and Sun didn't make 64-bit flash or java until recently)