SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

August 2005

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Axel Thimm <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:22:16 +0200
Content-Type:
multipart/signed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1064 bytes) , application/pgp-signature (194 bytes)
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 11:01:03AM +0100, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi,
> I had problems getting the 64 bit versions of
> (SL 305) mozilla and firefox to recognise the various
> plugins. In the end I reverted back to using
> the i386 versions of the browsers and everything seems to work
> fine now.
> 
> As a result I have a couple of questions:-
> 
> (1) Has anyone already got all the plugins to
>     work with the 64 bit version?

Which ones? java works fine with blackdown's. I haven't used flash or
acroread plugins on x86_64, though, so I can's say anything about
them.

> (2) What should I add to the yum.conf so that
>     the i386 versions of mozilla/firefix get automatically updated
>     if new versions are released?
>     I obviously don't want to risk getting all my x86_64
>     apps getting updated with i386 ones.

yum *should* prefer x86_64 over i386, but the safest paths os to
create your local repos iwth the i386 bits you really need. This isn't
really automatic, unless you will feed this repo to several clients.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net


ATOM RSS1 RSS2