On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:35:04 -0700 Samuel Sieb <samuel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/14/2017 07:37 PM, Franta Hanzlík wrote: > > Hello Ralf and Jeff, > > thank you for your answers. I finally found the repos descriptions here: > > > > ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/fedora-secondary/releases/26/Everything/i386/os/Packages/f/fedora-release-26-1.noarch.rpm > > ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/local/fedora/26/i386/os/Packages/bellet-release-26-1.noarch.rpm > > ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/remi/fedora/26/remi/i386/remi-release-26-2.fc26.remi.noarch.rpm > > ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/rpmfusion/free/fedora/releases/26/Everything/i386/os/Packages/r/rpmfusion-free-release-26-1.noarch.rpm > > ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/rpmfusion/nonfree/fedora/releases/26/Everything/i386/os/Packages/r/rpmfusion-nonfree-release-26-1.noarch.rpm > > ftp://mirrors.ircam.fr/pub/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/planetccrma/26/i386/planetccrma-repo-1.1-3.fc26.ccrma.noarch.rpm > > Or you could just go to the websites of each project where they provide > the release rpms. > > > My troubles were especially with the determination of the places of the > > Fedora repos itself - thanks to my error with the evaluation of the metalink > > reference to the Fedora 26/i386 mirror list, and also because I did not find > > mirrors on any server I used before. The explanation was simple - while > > the metalink https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-26&arch=x86_64 > > returns 77 sites of mirrors, the metalink for i386 return only 5 (!) sites > > - that were not the ones I was looking for. > > Why does that matter? dnf will use the metalink and find the mirrors > that are available. What are you trying to do? I wanted to say that I was surprised that I could not find Fedora 26/i386 repos on (IMO) well-known mirror sites - and that I do not wonder now, if there are only five of them. Nothing extra. > > Reason why I'm using i386 arch - I have quite a number 8+ year old PCs, > > that are quite sufficient for work and have only 0.5 - 2 GB of RAM. > > (and although some of them should perhaps run on x86_64, I do not like > > actual 32- and 64-bit SW mishmash on x86_64 (F26/x86_64 release has 19281 > > x86_64.rpm packages and 8200 .i[3456]86.rpm - 30%!). 10+ years ago I was > > More than ten years ago I worked with Linux on DEC Alpha servers/ws, and > > pure 64-bit wasn't problem - and now, 15 years later, we still sin for > > the backward compatibility of x86_64 architecture. ;) > > You can run pure 64-bit if you want. The 32-bit libraries are just > available if necessary, for example wine or various third-party > applications. For most things I can do with pure 32-bit only ;) It seems rather strange to me that if x86_64 contains 30% of i386 packages, the i386 / i686 architecture has been moved to the secondary track. -- Franta Hanzlik _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
