Re: Running 32bit OpenGL program with amd64
Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 02:58:50PM +0200, lee wrote:
>> Francesco Pietra <chiendarret@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hello:
>> > I would like to continue to use a 32bit graphical program based on
>> > OpenGL. It worked well on i386, requiring libXm.so.3 (from libmotif3).
>> >
>> > Is it conceivable to simply add libXm.so.3 (taken from my dismissed
>> > i388 PC) to ia32-libs?
>>
>> If you're running stable, it might work if all dependencies are
>> fulfilled. You could try it out ... In testing, 32bit support is
>> broken, and ia32-libs seems to be deprecated in favour of brokenarch.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Please reconsider your public disparaging of the hard work of many
> people over many years. It's not helpful or productive.
I'm not disparaging anything. What they euphemistically call
"multiarch" means they want users to turn their installations into some
mixture of different architectures and to give up the one they are
running. That makes things way more difficult or even impossible to
maintain and, in case of amd64, leaves them with a broken system after
things that used to work fine suddenly stopped working. There's even no
fix for that. They are trying offload the work to the users, claiming
that it becomes easier to maintain the packages, ignoring that it
becomes much more difficult for the users to maintain their systems. I
have always refused to turn my system back about a decade to an obsolete
architecture, and now they are trying to force me to do just that. I
don't want to have two (or more) different architectures installed, and
I don't want to have to dig through twice (or more) the number of
packages --- it's extremely annoying.
> If you have found a corner case where multi-arch is not working for
> you, then please file bugs appropriately.
It can't be a corner case. Since the last update of the NVIDIA drivers,
something is broken and apparently all 32bit software that uses SDL
doesn't work anymore. That will affect everyone who tries to run such
software.
Besides, I've filed a bug report immediately after things stopped
working a few weeks ago, and it's still not fixed. It has been ignored
except for a package I didn't send the report against and didn't even
know that the package exists.
> Multi-arch is working extremely well for everyone else, and it is
> already a massive improvement upon the status quo. If you have
> nothing positive to contribute, then consider not saying it at all.
Brokenarch sucks badly. What makes you think it works for anyone? It's
in no way an improvement that users who can't avoid to run 32bit
software on amd64 now are supposed to dig through twice the number of
packages. It's in no way an improvement that they need to give up their
architecture. It's in no way an improvement that they will end up with
installing everything twice. It's in no way an improvement that users
don't know anymore what they need to install to be able to run 32bit
software. It's in no way an improvement that it doesn't help in any
way to get rid of an obsolete architecture. Brokenarch makes things
worse and doesn't improve anything at all.
Who do you think you are that you think you could tell me to shut up?
Better tell me how to get things working again.
--
Debian testing iad96 brokenarch
Reply to: