[WBEL-users] Frustrations on x86_64
sean at catfeeder.net
Thu Jul 21 13:04:07 CDT 2005
Daniel J. Summers wrote:
> Good evening.
> I'm becoming quite frustrated with my WBEL 4 x86_64 install. This
> isn't a slam on the product - I'm grateful for it, and I'm sure
> there's a critical piece of information that I'm missing that makes it
> really, really useful indeed (apologies to Thomas the Tank Engine).
> Rather, the point of this is to ask for help, as I've researched this
> stuff and come up empty.
> What is the trick to building things under this architecture? Some
> packages bomb in the ./configure step. Some compile fine, but if you
> use the --enable-shared=yes directive (as you have to, to use these
> with other things), gcc gripes about not being able to relocate a
> label (or something like that). OpenOffice.org doesn't run, and the
> work-around, I've been told, is to install the i686 version too. To
> me, this seems strange - is that what RH tells their folks? The
> installer is a rebuild of RH's installer, so if it fails for us,
> surely it's also failing for them. (Or is it? Am I wrong to think
> that this is a kludgey fix? Should I download the oo.o source and try
> building it on my machine?)
> Oddly enough, xine and xine-ui built perfectly - download the tarball,
> rpmbuild -ta, and install - good to go. I'm even hosting these rpms
> on my website, and have had over 600 downloads in the past 2 months,
> with no one e-mailing me saying "hey, this crap didn't work!" - so
> they must be good.
> I guess I'm just grasping at straws, trying to figure out what in the
> world the difference is (both between xine and something like liba52,
> and i686 and x86_64). I ran WBEL 3 on an Athlon XP box fine for over
> a year, until the hardware began having stability issues. And, I can
> tell that the 64-bit WBEL 4 runs the machine much more efficiently
> than the 32-bit Windows - I can tell that just by how much the fan
> comes on (or doesn't).
> Maybe I'm missing the whole "shared module" concept - I'm trying to
> get transcode to work, and I've found x86_64 rpms for all requirements
> except two, and these are the two that gripe about not being able to
I agree. I've had an x86_64 machine since January, and I haven't found
a distribution that I'm truly happy with yet. I don't consider that a
flaw in WhiteBox....I simply think that while x86_64 is a good arch for
server apps, it's not quite ready for the desktop yet. For me,
annoyances have been things like no 64-bit Flash or Java (although I
think the Java situation has recently changed).
What alleviated most of my problems was to simply run a 32-bit browser,
and use the appropriate plugins for that, but even that turned out to be
a bit of work, as there were either missing libraries or ones in the
I've run Linux on both SPARC and PowerPC, and I think the thing that
confuses me most about x86_64 is all of the compatability libs and
stuff, since it's still backward compatible with IA32. I know it's
possible to compile for either architecture, and I think I made a false
assumption that it would pretty well be cake to transfer my IA32 stuff
over. There are still some makefiles and installers that simply bomb
out when confronted by a non-i386 architecture. I'm OK with that...I'd
just like to know how to have my compile environment set up better for
compiling i386 binaries on x86_64 when I need to.
More information about the Whitebox-users