Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:01:48 -0600 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: acroread on the amd64 Message-ID: <20041124140148.61926075@dolphin.local.net> In-Reply-To: <20041124194239.GB24353@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20041124145143.O4002@april.chuckr.org> <20041124194239.GB24353@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:42:39 -0800, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:57:07PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > > I noticed that acroread is marked as being only for the i386 ... I > > have a question about that ... I'm a little new at running the > > amd64, but I thought that it was compatible (if it had the 32 bit > > libraries installed to support it) with i386, so I would have > > expected my amd64 machine to be ablel to run acroread with little > > trouble. The port being marked as"ONLY_FOR_ARCHS", well, I > > considered, *possibly*, that the port author hadn't had the testing > > capability, and maybe it did too work on the amd64. > > If you get 32-bit linux compatability running then acrobat should > work. Not only should, but actually does. :-) > This is actually a deficencly in our ports infrastructure. For > binary only ports, we could really use the ability to say that the > port supports the following native architectures and the system should > be smart enough to know that i386 ports will work on amd64. Yes, I've tinkered with a number of ONLY_FOR_ARCHS ports on amd64, and gotten them to build and run successfully. I really should send-pr these (if I can remember now which ones they were). :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier <conrads@cox.net> -- "In Unix veritas"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041124140148.61926075>