How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?
kilzzz at hotmail.com
Sat Sep 30 19:06:54 BST 2006
>From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz at ubuntu.com>
>To: ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>Subject: Re: How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:56:32 -0700
>On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 02:16:01PM +0200, Alexandre Strube wrote:
> > Em sáb, 2006-09-30 às 01:14 +0200, Florian Zeitz escreveu:
> > > Yes you are certainly right. Many people want it.But from a technical
> > > point of view it sucks (might be a bit harsh, but isn't that untrue
> > > after all).
> > > And understandably developers don't want to have to support something
> > > that just isn't done the right way.
> > I was thinking about this matter of support. Correct me if i'm wrong,
> > but Firefox's source is only one for 32 & 64 bits, isn't it? I mean,
> > both are generated from the same source package.
> > How hard could it be to add a sort of "hybrid" arch, one which would
> > compile 32-bit firefox for amd64 the same way it does for i386, but then
> > just put it in the correct places on the amd64 directory structure on
> > the binary package?
>This thread is starting to go in circles; this was discussed at the very
>The primary reason this is a lot of work is that it requires that the same
>thing be done for the development libraries used to build Firefox.
>So far, the best short-term solution would seem to be the plugin adapter
>mentioned earlier which would allow 32-bit plugins to be used with 64-bit
> - mdz
>ubuntu-devel mailing list
>ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
If you are referring to nspluginwrapper it needs a lot of work. It causes
64bit firefox to crash on a lot of sites. 64bit users currently testing it
report they need to have flash block installed because of this. They then
selectively test sites.
SearchYour way, your world, right now!
More information about the ubuntu-devel