Main menu:

Sponsoring

Please consider a small donation:

 

Also appreciated: support me by clicking the ads (costs nothing) :-)

 

Or you can donate bitcoin:

 

Thanks to TekLinks in Birmingham, AL, for providing colocation and bandwidth.

Page Rank

Fame

FOSS Force Best Blog--2013 Award

Recent posts

Recent comments

About this blog

I am Eric Hameleers, and this is where I think out loud.
More about me.

Search

My Favourites

Slackware

Calendar

August 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

RSS Alien's Slackware packages

RSS Alien's unofficial KDE Slackware packages

RSS Alien's multilib packages

Meta

Sixty four bits

Question to the readers of this blog who are also users of my SlackBuild scripts…

Who would be interested to see 64bit versions of the packages I have in my repository? Currently I have built and tested “x86_64” packages for ffmpeg, flashplayer-plugin, fontforge, gcc34, mozilla-nss, mplayer, mplayerplug-in, qemu, recordmydesktop, sshfs-fuse, tightvnc, vlc and yasm. Some are simply re-using my unmodified SlackBuild scripts but some were painful to get right on x86_64.

I am a bit hesitant to add them to the repository, (1) because there is no 64bit Slackware and (2) it would mean again higher storage requirements which force me to remove packages for Slackware 11 and older.

The packages will work on slamd64, and probably on bluewhite64 too. I kept the lib64 approach dictated by the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (fhs) which is what slamd64 uses as well.

I would appreciate if you leave a comment- whatever your opinion.

Cheers, Eric

Comments

Comment from Chess Griffin
Posted: December 29, 2008 at 05:21

Eric,

Although I have not (yet) used Slamd64 on my 64-bit capable machines, I think it would be awesome if you provided 64-bit packages on your site, but I certainly understand the issue with storage space. I imagine if the older versions of your packages for Slackware 11 are still being downloaded a lot, then it would be a tough decision on whether to remove them (although you could still provide the scripts of course, so those users on Slackware 11 wouldn’t be totally out in the cold.) I imagine your 64-bit packages might help users test out Slamd64 which I’m sure Fred would appreciate and that same feedback would presumably help any future official Slackware 64 if that were to happen.

Personally, my vote would be to add the 64-bit packages. :-)

Comment from Gunnar
Posted: January 1, 2009 at 09:46

Hi Eric,

Just to make my feedback official, it’d be more than welcome with 64bit support, both for SLAMD64, but also for generating more interest around a possible future official 64bit slackware!

Comment from NickC
Posted: January 10, 2009 at 06:12

I wouldn’t use it as I have no plans to upgrade to 64-bit any time soon. OTOH, I have no need for older Slackware versions either (currently I’m on 12.1), so losing those from the repository wouldn’t concern me either.

Not much added value in my comments I’m afraid, but it might help you guage how great is the proportion of “don’t care” replies.

Also, while I’m here, many thanks for the repository and your efforts.

Comment from danix
Posted: January 17, 2009 at 09:39

Hi Eric,
I agree with Chess Griffin, it would be great to add x86_64 packages and, at least, leave your slackbuilds for Slackware 11.0… Actually I’m using BlueWhite64 and I had to compile a lot of software, so your repository would be (at least for me) really helpful…

Sorry for my bad english…

Comment from JK Wood
Posted: January 27, 2009 at 00:33

Eric,

As a Slamd64 user, certainly welcome all the third-party support I can get. You may know of my “slamdbuilds” project going on at http://github.com/JoshW/slamdbuilds/ with which I’m trying to do as much as possible to provide third-party SlackBuilds for Slamd64. If you have certain of your builds that you would like to “donate” to the cause, feel free to let me know. Even if you don’t provide packages, the build scripts are invaluable.

Comment from alienbob
Posted: January 27, 2009 at 01:24

Well actually all my SlackBuilds _should_ build without modification on multilib Slamd64 (to be run as “ARCH=x86_64 ./foo.SlackBuild”).
Only when specific 64bit patches are required this will not be caught by my scripts.

An example of that is VLC which I have extensively built over and over again on x86_64 in order to have a working package for 32bit as well as 64bit when it hits the 1.0.0 release. Lots of 64bit specific adaptations went into that SlackBuild :-/

If any of you know of 64 specific patches needed by any SlackBuild script in my repo, just drop a line.

Thanks for the support, Eric

Comment from arfon
Posted: February 25, 2009 at 23:19

I use Slamd64 on all of my 64bit machines (since I understand that it has 64 and 32bit libraries and BlueWhite does not).

It would be WONDERFUL if you could support 64bit since one day, Slackware will HAVE TO convert. I think there is enough of a user base now to make the repository useful.

I hate to see the old packages go but, 64bit is coming and Slackware pre-11 is going.

Comment from daniel forga
Posted: July 18, 2009 at 17:01

IMHO, it’s now or never! :) I’m talking about Slackware in general. I think in the near future it should drop the i386 architecture altogether (4/5/6-x86) and focus on AMD64 (x86-64). With such a small team (talented, as it may be :P) it’s crucial to focus on what really matters. The 32 bits platform is becoming rapidly irrelevant. I think it’s the only chance the project has to survive, and I hope that it does :) So going back to your question, I think the entire effort on Slackware should focus more on x86-64 (exclusively, I would say :D), and the slackbuilds should also go in this direction.

Write a comment