Bob, Part of the reason is that programs like openoffice.org aren't yet 64- bit. OOo is still 32-bit (doesn't compile yet for 64-bit architectures because its not 64-bit clean) but we're working on that. But, to have a 32-bit OOo run on x86_64, we need to drag along a bunch of stuff, like cups, gtk2, glib, pango, etc. That's why most of the packages are there, because programs taht don't yet have 64-bit equivalents still need to link against the 32-bit versions, even if you run them on x86_64. dan On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 08:10 +0200, Bob Deblier wrote: > There's a whole list of i386 packages in the core/updates/2/x86_64 > directory (on download.fedora.redhat.com and ftp.belnet.be - please > check other mirrors): > > -rw-r--r-- 103151 Jun 3 16:52 cups-libs-1.1.20-11.1.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 103405 Sep 28 16:34 cups-libs-1.1.20-11.3.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 103504 Oct 5 17:10 cups-libs-1.1.20-11.4.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 487384 Oct 19 15:44 glib2-2.4.7-1.1.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 4571957 Oct 19 15:45 gtk2-2.4.13-2.1.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 4416526 Sep 15 17:52 gtk2-2.4.7-2.4.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 4415614 Sep 16 06:51 gtk2-2.4.7-2.5.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 4415644 Sep 23 18:16 gtk2-2.4.7-2.6.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 494316 Jun 4 20:50 krb5-libs-1.3.3-7.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 495462 Aug 31 20:11 krb5-libs-1.3.4-6.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 152706 Jun 18 16:05 libpng-1.2.5-5.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 153140 Aug 4 17:38 libpng-1.2.5-8.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 197502 Oct 14 18:48 libtiff-3.5.7-20.2.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 9416513 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 9417523 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 168779 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-chat-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 168855 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-chat-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 3430668 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-devel-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 3431150 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-devel-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 129375 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-dom-inspector-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 129476 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-dom-inspector-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 216249 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-js-debugger-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 216304 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-js-debugger-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 1837821 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-mail-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 1837765 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-mail-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 105703 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-nspr-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 105804 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-nspr-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 182713 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-nspr-devel-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm-rw-r--r-- 182832 Sep 22 > 22:52 mozilla-nspr-devel-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm-rw-r--r-- 642446 > Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-nss-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 642551 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-nss-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 426276 Aug 6 00:15 > mozilla-nss-devel-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 426427 Sep 22 22:52 > mozilla-nss-devel-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 45384012 Oct 21 16:20 > openoffice.org-1.1.2-10.fc2.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 116156909 Oct 21 16:22 > openoffice.org-i18n-1.1.2-10.fc2.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 40707893 Oct 21 16:22 > openoffice.org-libs-1.1.2-10.fc2.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 260729 Oct 7 20:14 pango-1.4.1-1.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 4653801 May 7 00:56 redhat-artwork-0.96-1.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 14116065 Sep 13 22:16 samba-3.0.7-2.FC2.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 5372296 Jul 6 18:42 xorg-x11-devel-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 5380547 Sep 29 02:16 xorg-x11-devel-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 2452335 Jul 6 18:42 xorg-x11-libs-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 2458616 Sep 29 02:16 xorg-x11-libs-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 338313 Jul 6 18:42 > xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 344304 Sep 29 02:16 > xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 409220 Jul 6 18:42 > xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm > -rw-r--r-- 415215 Sep 29 02:16 > xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm > > This wouldn't be a critical problem, but the corresponding x86_64 > versions seem to be missing. > > What gives? Should I report this on BugZilla - if yes, under what > component? > > Bob Deblier >
