Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Larry Stotler
I just did a fresh install of 42.3 64bit.  I had the dvd to do the
install, but had to update on a very metered connection, so I went
through the installed packages to find out what I could remove to save
data.

Now, I thought this had been addressed before, but after searching
around the archive of this list, I didn't find anything.

Why are like 80 some 32bit packages installed by default?  I ended up
removing and the taboo-ing all of them to save my data allowance.  I
do not have any 32bit programs installed at all, no WINE or anything
else, so I am not sure why so many packages got installed.  I allowed
YaST to break the dependencies and have not had any issues so far but
I am concerned that I may end up with some.

So my question is, are there really any 32bit packages that need to be
a dependency on a pure 64bit install?  If not, then why are they added
by default during the install, when no 32bit programs are selected?

I've been running S.u.S.E. since v5.3 and I think my biggest
frustration has been unwanted packages installed by default as
dependencies, or failing to install due to an unsolvable
dependency(tho this has gotten rarer over the years, but boy was it a
pain when I was on dailup at the beginning).

I never install stuff like pulseaudio, avahi, libreoffice, etc.  but
I'm always warned I may be breaking the install when I taboo a lot of
them.

Thanx

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Vojtěch Zeisek-2
Dne pondělí 4. prosince 2017 15:01:35 CET, Larry Stotler napsal(a):

> I just did a fresh install of 42.3 64bit.  I had the dvd to do the
> install, but had to update on a very metered connection, so I went
> through the installed packages to find out what I could remove to save
> data.
>
> Now, I thought this had been addressed before, but after searching
> around the archive of this list, I didn't find anything.
>
> Why are like 80 some 32bit packages installed by default?  I ended up
> removing and the taboo-ing all of them to save my data allowance.  I
> do not have any 32bit programs installed at all, no WINE or anything
> else, so I am not sure why so many packages got installed.  I allowed
> YaST to break the dependencies and have not had any issues so far but
> I am concerned that I may end up with some.
>
> So my question is, are there really any 32bit packages that need to be
> a dependency on a pure 64bit install?  If not, then why are they added
> by default during the install, when no 32bit programs are selected?
>
> I've been running S.u.S.E. since v5.3 and I think my biggest
> frustration has been unwanted packages installed by default as
> dependencies, or failing to install due to an unsolvable
> dependency(tho this has gotten rarer over the years, but boy was it a
> pain when I was on dailup at the beginning).
>
> I never install stuff like pulseaudio, avahi, libreoffice, etc.  but
> I'm always warned I may be breaking the install when I taboo a lot of
> them.
IMHO this is because also recommended (so not only required) packages are
installed by default. My solution is to edit /etc/zypp/zypp.conf and change
solver.onlyRequires = false to true. It'll stop installation of recommended
packages (unless stated otherwise in zypper or YaST).
HTH,
V.

--
Vojtěch Zeisek
https://trapa.cz/

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Anton Aylward-2
In reply to this post by Larry Stotler
On 04/12/17 09:01 AM, Larry Stotler wrote:
> So my question is, are there really any 32bit packages that need to be
> a dependency on a pure 64bit install?  If not, then why are they added
> by default during the install, when no 32bit programs are selected?
>
> [...]
>
> I never install stuff like pulseaudio, avahi, libreoffice, etc.  but
> I'm always warned I may be breaking the install when I taboo a lot of
> them.

OK, so I'm running 42.2, and OK so I have a large set of other repositories for
special interests like photography....

I do a 'zypper search 32bit' and see that while I have a hole raft of them
locked out, I hove none, zip, nada, absolutely no 32 bit package installed on my
64-bit machine.

OK, so I don't WINE

I *DO have all of  pulseaudio, avahi, libreoffice and few other goodies, but
they are the 64-bit versions and I don't have any problems with them.



--
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Larry Stotler
In reply to this post by Vojtěch Zeisek-2
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> IMHO this is because also recommended (so not only required) packages are
> installed by default. My solution is to edit /etc/zypp/zypp.conf and change
> solver.onlyRequires = false to true. It'll stop installation of recommended
> packages (unless stated otherwise in zypper or YaST).

There is no way to do this via the ncurses or graphical YaST?  While I
don't have a problem editing the files, I know some may.  Just curious
as to why it would not be if that is the case.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Larry Stotler
In reply to this post by Anton Aylward-2
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anton Aylward <[hidden email]> wrote:
> OK, so I'm running 42.2, and OK so I have a large set of other repositories for
> special interests like photography....
> I do a 'zypper search 32bit' and see that while I have a hole raft of them
> locked out, I hove none, zip, nada, absolutely no 32 bit package installed on my
> 64-bit machine.

Did you explicitly exclude them?

Good to know that stability shouldn't be an issue.  I realize that
some programs even now may not have migrated to 64bit, but having to
update unneeded packages on a metered connection is not desirable,

Thanx

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink
In reply to this post by Larry Stotler
Op maandag 4 december 2017 16:18:47 CET schreef Larry Stotler:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > IMHO this is because also recommended (so not only required) packages are
> > installed by default. My solution is to edit /etc/zypp/zypp.conf and
> > change
> > solver.onlyRequires = false to true. It'll stop installation of
> > recommended
> > packages (unless stated otherwise in zypper or YaST).
>
> There is no way to do this via the ncurses or graphical YaST?  While I
> don't have a problem editing the files, I know some may.  Just curious
> as to why it would not be if that is the case.

It is. On the top "menu", under Dependencies. Simply uncheck the appropriate
item. Found by simply checking.

--
Gertjan Lettink, a.k.a. Knurpht

openSUSE Board Member
openSUSE Forums Team

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Vojtěch Zeisek-2
In reply to this post by Larry Stotler
Dne pondělí 4. prosince 2017 16:18:47 CET, Larry Stotler napsal(a):

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > IMHO this is because also recommended (so not only required) packages are
> > installed by default. My solution is to edit /etc/zypp/zypp.conf and
> > change solver.onlyRequires = false to true. It'll stop installation of
> > recommended packages (unless stated otherwise in zypper or YaST).
>
> There is no way to do this via the ncurses or graphical YaST?  While I
> don't have a problem editing the files, I know some may.  Just curious
> as to why it would not be if that is the case.
I don't see such an option in YaST SW manager. For zypper, of course, install
sub-command has options --recommends and --no-recommends. If You are unable or
do not wish to fight with these settings, then installing also recommended
packages can be good idea. :-)

--
Vojtěch Zeisek
https://trapa.cz/

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

jdd@dodin.org
In reply to this post by Larry Stotler
Le 04/12/2017 à 16:18, Larry Stotler a écrit :

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> IMHO this is because also recommended (so not only required) packages are
>> installed by default. My solution is to edit /etc/zypp/zypp.conf and change
>> solver.onlyRequires = false to true. It'll stop installation of recommended
>> packages (unless stated otherwise in zypper or YaST).
>
> There is no way to do this via the ncurses or graphical YaST?  While I
> don't have a problem editing the files, I know some may.  Just curious
> as to why it would not be if that is the case.
>
in yast, updates are managed through "you"n (Yast Online Update), may be
this module is not installed?

jdd

--
http://dodin.org

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Patrick Shanahan-2
In reply to this post by Larry Stotler
* Larry Stotler <[hidden email]> [12-04-17 10:24]:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anton Aylward <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > OK, so I'm running 42.2, and OK so I have a large set of other repositories for
> > special interests like photography....
> > I do a 'zypper search 32bit' and see that while I have a hole raft of them
> > locked out, I hove none, zip, nada, absolutely no 32 bit package installed on my
> > 64-bit machine.
>
> Did you explicitly exclude them?
>
> Good to know that stability shouldn't be an issue.  I realize that
> some programs even now may not have migrated to 64bit, but having to
> update unneeded packages on a metered connection is not desirable,

do:  zypper -vv rm *32bit*

zypper will issue complaints if it requires one of the subject pkgs.

--
(paka)Patrick Shanahan       Plainfield, Indiana, USA          @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.org    openSUSE Community Member    facebook/ptilopteri
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://linuxcounter.net
Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo                    paka @ IRCnet freenode

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Anton Aylward-2
On 04/12/17 11:49 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

> * Larry Stotler <[hidden email]> [12-04-17 10:24]:
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anton Aylward <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> OK, so I'm running 42.2, and OK so I have a large set of other repositories for
>>> special interests like photography....
>>> I do a 'zypper search 32bit' and see that while I have a hole raft of them
>>> locked out, I hove none, zip, nada, absolutely no 32 bit package installed on my
>>> 64-bit machine.
>>
>> Did you explicitly exclude them?
>>
>> Good to know that stability shouldn't be an issue.  I realize that
>> some programs even now may not have migrated to 64bit, but having to
>> update unneeded packages on a metered connection is not desirable,
>
> [snip]

Of the 2013 32-bit packages in all the repositories I use I have only 66 that
I've explicitly had to lock out at some time, probably while clearing out other
32 bit garbage.  I probably don't need those locks any more unless I take a
'recommended'.  I can't think of anything I have installed that would want any.


--
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Content-ID: <[hidden email]>


On Monday, 2017-12-04 at 16:24 +0100, Knurpht - Gertjan Lettink wrote:

> Op maandag 4 december 2017 16:18:47 CET schreef Larry Stotler:
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Vojtěch Zeisek <> wrote:
>>> IMHO this is because also recommended (so not only required) packages are
>>> installed by default. My solution is to edit /etc/zypp/zypp.conf and
>>> change
>>> solver.onlyRequires = false to true. It'll stop installation of
>>> recommended
>>> packages (unless stated otherwise in zypper or YaST).
>>
>> There is no way to do this via the ncurses or graphical YaST?  While I
>> don't have a problem editing the files, I know some may.  Just curious
>> as to why it would not be if that is the case.
>
> It is. On the top "menu", under Dependencies. Simply uncheck the appropriate
> item. Found by simply checking.
Is that accessible while installing from the DVD? Options are limited, I
am not doing an install anytime soon to check...

The OP is installing a new system from DVD and wants to reduce amount of
downloads.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlolmGoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9Ut2wCcCcogG56FWg2DYc98Zl9Ns5Zx
tsYAmQF6eZP13bopp1j48r2cu8VJ0nbq
=bgfm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Felix Miata-3
In reply to this post by Larry Stotler
Larry Stotler composed on 2017-12-04 09:01 (UTC-0500):

> Why are like 80 some 32bit packages installed by default?

 Lots of packages are "recommended" by default. IIRC, 32bit recommends on 64bit
installations have their genesis in now-obsolete multimedia dependencies.

> So my question is, are there really any 32bit packages that need to be
> a dependency on a pure 64bit install?

 No.

> If not, then why are they added
> by default during the install, when no 32bit programs are selected?

 id.

> I've been running S.u.S.E. since v5.3 and I think my biggest
> frustration has been unwanted packages installed by default as
> dependencies
 I was frustrated the same for years, until finally someone here poked me hard
enough to look right in front of my nose, (under Dependencies) to disable

        "Install Recommended Packages":

http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Suse/YaST/423/yast2-dependencies0768.png
--
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

C. Brouerius van Nidek
In reply to this post by Patrick Shanahan-2
On Monday, December 4, 2017 11:49:52 PM WIB Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Larry Stotler <[hidden email]> [12-04-17 10:24]:
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anton Aylward <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > > OK, so I'm running 42.2, and OK so I have a large set of other
> > > repositories for special interests like photography....
> > > I do a 'zypper search 32bit' and see that while I have a hole raft of
> > > them
> > > locked out, I hove none, zip, nada, absolutely no 32 bit package
> > > installed on my 64-bit machine.
> >
> > Did you explicitly exclude them?
> >
> > Good to know that stability shouldn't be an issue.  I realize that
> > some programs even now may not have migrated to 64bit, but having to
> > update unneeded packages on a metered connection is not desirable,
>
> do:  zypper -vv rm *32bit*
>
> zypper will issue complaints if it requires one of the subject pkgs.

Unbelievable, Looked into my system and found 147 32mit packaged .
They all were deleted without any protest :).
--
opensuse:tumbleweed:20171202
Qt: 5.9.2
KDE Frameworks: 5.40.0
kf5-config: 1.0
KDE Plasma: 5.11.3
plasmashell 5.11.3
Kernel: 4.14.2-1-default
Linux User 183145 working on a Pentium IV .


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Anton Aylward-2
On 05/12/17 12:02 AM, C. Brouerius van Nidek wrote:
>> zypper will issue complaints if it requires one of the subject pkgs.

> Unbelievable, Looked into my system and found 147 32mit packaged .
> They all were deleted without any protest :).

I can't say it surprises me.

The obvious question now becomes...

        What is there in the basic/core install [1] of a workstation
        that WOULD require some 32-bit packages

[1] that is an email/web-browser/writer basic setup, not audio, photo editing,
no web, email-hub, FTP or SMB services.

--
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Dave Howorth-3
In reply to this post by C. Brouerius van Nidek
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 12:02:12 +0700
"C. Brouerius van Nidek" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday, December 4, 2017 11:49:52 PM WIB Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > * Larry Stotler <[hidden email]> [12-04-17 10:24]:  
> > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anton Aylward
> > > <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
> > > > OK, so I'm running 42.2, and OK so I have a large set of other
> > > > repositories for special interests like photography....
> > > > I do a 'zypper search 32bit' and see that while I have a hole
> > > > raft of them
> > > > locked out, I hove none, zip, nada, absolutely no 32 bit package
> > > > installed on my 64-bit machine.  
> > >
> > > Did you explicitly exclude them?
> > >
> > > Good to know that stability shouldn't be an issue.  I realize that
> > > some programs even now may not have migrated to 64bit, but having
> > > to update unneeded packages on a metered connection is not
> > > desirable,  
> >
> > do:  zypper -vv rm *32bit*
> >
> > zypper will issue complaints if it requires one of the subject
> > pkgs.  
>
> Unbelievable, Looked into my system and found 147 32mit packaged .
> They all were deleted without any protest :).

I found 65 - but I changed the recommend option in YaST a while ago.
What did surprise me were how many applications were actually using
those 32bit packages when I deleted them! Why is systemd using a 32bit
package on a 64bit machine, for example?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

David C. Rankin
In reply to this post by Anton Aylward-2
On 12/05/2017 05:03 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

> On 05/12/17 12:02 AM, C. Brouerius van Nidek wrote:
>>> zypper will issue complaints if it requires one of the subject pkgs.
>
>> Unbelievable, Looked into my system and found 147 32mit packaged .
>> They all were deleted without any protest :).
>
> I can't say it surprises me.
>
> The obvious question now becomes...
>
> What is there in the basic/core install [1] of a workstation
> that WOULD require some 32-bit packages
>
> [1] that is an email/web-browser/writer basic setup, not audio, photo editing,
> no web, email-hub, FTP or SMB services.
>

For dev packages they are needed if you target 32-bit builds from your 64-bit
box. I haven't counted how many I have, (OK, I just did -- 182) mostly libXXX
and gcc packages. Which is fine for what I do (and with a 1T platter it's more
a convenience)

There are two approaches I see distros take. The openSuSE type - include 32bit
libs when 64 bit libs are installed -- for this purpose,

The second approach is the Arch approach -- include none and require you to go
reconfigure your system to include the `multilib` repository and replace gcc,
glibc, etc. with multilib versions if you ever need to target a 32bit build on
your 64bit box. (this is one heck of a bit of reconfiguration just for the
rarely needed 'gcc -m32 -o foo foo.c' (I actually had to do this not too long ago)

So from the 1T platter standpoint, I don't mind the 32bit libs -- they are
there if I need a 32bit target. If I were on a 128G SSD -- then that balance
would probably tilt the other direction.

The best solution is to make an easily configurable checkbox (during install
Package Selection) that lets the user choose which way to go -- or provide a
simple method to access the zypp.conf 'used by the installer' so this change
can be made before package selection.

There may be other uses for them (I don't know if setting up a VM with KVM or
Zen ever needs them for a 32bit guest), but I can see if you don't ever open
konsole with 8-tabs for hacking with gcc, then you probably don't need to give
up the drive real-estate.


--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Marcus Meissner
In reply to this post by Larry Stotler
Hi,

The core reason for most of them is that PAM modules have to work in both
32 and 64bit variants, and PAM has no biarch specific configuration so
most PAM modules "recommend" their 32bit equivalent.

Ciao, Marcus

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:01:35AM -0500, Larry Stotler wrote:

> I just did a fresh install of 42.3 64bit.  I had the dvd to do the
> install, but had to update on a very metered connection, so I went
> through the installed packages to find out what I could remove to save
> data.
>
> Now, I thought this had been addressed before, but after searching
> around the archive of this list, I didn't find anything.
>
> Why are like 80 some 32bit packages installed by default?  I ended up
> removing and the taboo-ing all of them to save my data allowance.  I
> do not have any 32bit programs installed at all, no WINE or anything
> else, so I am not sure why so many packages got installed.  I allowed
> YaST to break the dependencies and have not had any issues so far but
> I am concerned that I may end up with some.
>
> So my question is, are there really any 32bit packages that need to be
> a dependency on a pure 64bit install?  If not, then why are they added
> by default during the install, when no 32bit programs are selected?
>
> I've been running S.u.S.E. since v5.3 and I think my biggest
> frustration has been unwanted packages installed by default as
> dependencies, or failing to install due to an unsolvable
> dependency(tho this has gotten rarer over the years, but boy was it a
> pain when I was on dailup at the beginning).
>
> I never install stuff like pulseaudio, avahi, libreoffice, etc.  but
> I'm always warned I may be breaking the install when I taboo a lot of
> them.
>
> Thanx
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

--
Marcus Meissner,SUSE LINUX GmbH; Maxfeldstrasse 5; D-90409 Nuernberg; Zi. 3.1-33,+49-911-740 53-432,,serv=loki,mail=wotan,type=real <[hidden email]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Larry Stotler
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Marcus Meissner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The core reason for most of them is that PAM modules have to work in both
> 32 and 64bit variants, and PAM has no biarch specific configuration so
> most PAM modules "recommend" their 32bit equivalent.

So, if you aren't using PAM or SSO, then it is ok to remove them all?

I can think of a select few use cases for having the 32bit libs.
Updating on a metered connection is a pain.  It's worse under Windows
because if you allow the default settings, it will download basically
every update even if you don't need it.  And while taking a laptop to
a coffee shop for free internet is an option, the speeds are generally
very slow.

Thanx

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Carlos E. R.-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Thursday, 2017-12-07 at 06:54 -0500, Larry Stotler wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Marcus Meissner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> The core reason for most of them is that PAM modules have to work in both
>> 32 and 64bit variants, and PAM has no biarch specific configuration so
>> most PAM modules "recommend" their 32bit equivalent.
>
> So, if you aren't using PAM or SSO, then it is ok to remove them all?

I don't believe it is an option not to use PAM.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlopMjcACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UvlACeOAbGIeVAhUmzCZT5WN9BYa/S
b8sAn1jUdoZQrAC+GA3xx1VrCru5SeUQ
=uTEi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why so many 32bit packages on 64bit install?

Anton Aylward-2
In reply to this post by Marcus Meissner
On 07/12/17 03:35 AM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> The core reason for most of them is that PAM modules have to work in both
> 32 and 64bit variants, and PAM has no biarch specific configuration so
> most PAM modules "recommend" their 32bit equivalent.

Eh?
I use PAM and don't have any 32-bit anything on my system.

What's with "*have* to work..."

--
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

12