CentOS - Jan 2007 - Risks of installing i386 rpms on a x86_64 CentOS 4.4 installation

Hi Everyone,

Are there any risks in installing i386 binaries (via rpm) on a x86_64
installation of CentOS 4.4?

Thanks

-- 
"I never look back darling, it distracts from the now", Edna Mode (The
Incredibles)

On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 17:59 +1100, Devraj Mukherjee
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Are there any risks in installing i386 binaries (via rpm) on a x86_64
> installation of CentOS 4.4?
> 
I don't know if risk is the right word .. and if you stay with the i386
RPMS that are in the x86_64 repo you will have minimum headaches.

The problem comes in if you want to have BOTH the i386 and x86_64
version of a package installed.  In that case, there are sometimes
shared files to both packges (ie, files in /etc/, /usr/share/, etc.)

If those "Support Files" are not EXACTLY the same, there is an error
installing or updating them.

We try very hard to make sure the i386 files in x86_64 tree work as
planned.  If you install the i386 RPMS from outside that tree, you will
have to make them work yourself.

Personally, I would only install the x86_64 distro if I was reasonably
sure that I would not require i386 RPMS (or minimal i386 RPMS).

I just use i386 on all workstations and I use x86_64 on servers ... and
even on servers, only ones that will really be under heavy load or will
definitely not need i386 packages.

Some tricks to make i386 packages install ... use:

rpm -Uvh --nodocs rpmname1 rpmname2

(rpmname1 and 2 are the names of the rpms you want to install)

This prevents the install of docs for the i386 packages .. which cuts
out the usual source of the Duplicate file error.  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070120/39eae022/attachment.sig>

Thanks Johnny.

On 1/20/07, Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 17:59 +1100, Devraj Mukherjee wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Are there any risks in installing i386 binaries (via rpm) on a x86_64
> > installation of CentOS 4.4?
> >
>
> I don't know if risk is the right word .. and if you stay with the i386
> RPMS that are in the x86_64 repo you will have minimum headaches.
>
> The problem comes in if you want to have BOTH the i386 and x86_64
> version of a package installed.  In that case, there are sometimes
> shared files to both packges (ie, files in /etc/, /usr/share/, etc.)
>
> If those "Support Files" are not EXACTLY the same, there is an
error
> installing or updating them.
>
> We try very hard to make sure the i386 files in x86_64 tree work as
> planned.  If you install the i386 RPMS from outside that tree, you will
> have to make them work yourself.
>
> Personally, I would only install the x86_64 distro if I was reasonably
> sure that I would not require i386 RPMS (or minimal i386 RPMS).
>
> I just use i386 on all workstations and I use x86_64 on servers ... and
> even on servers, only ones that will really be under heavy load or will
> definitely not need i386 packages.
>
> Some tricks to make i386 packages install ... use:
>
> rpm -Uvh --nodocs rpmname1 rpmname2
>
> (rpmname1 and 2 are the names of the rpms you want to install)
>
> This prevents the install of docs for the i386 packages .. which cuts
> out the usual source of the Duplicate file error.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
>
>

-- 
"I never look back darling, it distracts from the now", Edna Mode (The
Incredibles)

While commenting on the subject of:
"Re: [CentOS] Risks of installing i386 rpms on a x86_64 CentOS 4.4 
installation"
Johnny Hughes wrote:

[snip]
> Personally, I would only install the x86_64 distro if I was reasonably
> sure that I would not require i386 RPMS (or minimal i386 RPMS).
> 
> I just use i386 on all workstations and I use x86_64 on servers ... and
> even on servers, only ones that will really be under heavy load or will
> definitely not need i386 packages.
If you wouldn't mind Johnny, could you elaborate on your
"Personally..."
recommendation?  I am running 4.4 x86_64 on AMD hardware (x64 3500+, 1G, 
3x160G SATA, Gigabyte nvidia nForce-4 Ultra chipset MB w/ Gigabyte 6200 
series pci-e graphics) for a "personal workstation" (otherwise known
as a
heavily used home computer).  I just counted in yumex and I have about 77 
packages with both 64 and 32 bit versions installed.  One (of several) 
reason I switched to Centos from Mandriva is the poor support Mandriva had 
for 64 bit versions.  Most packages in their repos were only available in 
32 bit versions, and some minor OS upgrades came out only in 32bit.  Centos 
seems to be very even-handed about the architectures (at least i836 vs. 
x86_64).

So far the 64/32 bit issue has only come up a couple of times, and I was 
able to resolve it leaving any blood (from my head) on the wall.  Should I 
be looking at switching to 32 bit?  If so, how on earth does one do that 
without rebuilding the machine from scratch?  I still don't have this one 
tweaked very well, and don't have all the programs I want installed. 
I'd
rather not start over AGAIN.

If it helps, my use is the usual email, web surfing, OpenOffice, plus 
desktop publishing (scribus), graphics (gimp, cinepaint, and others), and 
audio editing (audacity, etc) and I am trying to learn C++ (eclipse based). 
  I run VMWare server for those programs which I am forced to use in other 
operating systems (and also to isolate ipcop).  I am not a newbie, but 
neither am I an experienced old hand.  I have been using Linux for my 
personal computing for about a year (since I got this hardware).  I have 
had a Linux file server in my basement for about four years, but I set it 
up once and mostly ignored it (I think it runs RH8).

Your personal comments on my situation are welcome, as well as anyone else 
who wants to chime in.

Ted Miller
Indiana, USA