Re: [proaudio] fst fail to build on amd64 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
- To: proaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [proaudio] fst fail to build on amd64
- From: Mark Knecht <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:51:33 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R6GZeBvuKoennEg1BTyAuXeQQ3xJGYx+ElZ+ePEeNmg=; b=KF5M7UTZJoW+3XHJliWMR3+MqZi2F9QAiwmdiPjtHCDa4DQ6Gz3PACkO+tLyOhhQqj jhLSm1c4UjKfOAg6C5+HfzZOSBwuLxZTV3S6BX56xJC9N4apOwxCRntqVuHxoc2fF/pp EBatSDgQ67o8TTMsXFp3HvlKTgGNyTJ+HXSjg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=FkxEESMbtipKTZikOmM2WVl48tEcOZ5rGcLg2LRQZv+W6LR6WUKsNVHQRlu2YcxawC QLGQTbkcnNNREVr+aEX9ppTyJWlg08yeY6LPaAMBsxCsvZRcE3jye5sQa3qnfay6Q1BE 9uGMqdadi7JablJIZXoO7IZMukyKsLx2uk0PA=
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Di, 27.01.09 13:09 Mark Knecht <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Kuther
>> <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Di, 27.01.09 12:50 Mark Knecht <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Thomas Kuther
>> >> <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Di, 27.01.09 20:32 Dominique Michel
>> >> > <dominique.michel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi, I get the following error:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > FST is soo deprecated. It hasn't been updated it in ages.
>> >> > Check out dssi-vst, it works perfectly fine here.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Quick question - does dssi-vst require multi-lib to run correctly?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >
>> > It depends on WINE, so yes, you need a multilib profile.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks. I'm currently multi-lib but was considering dropping it. I
>> guess I cannot do that yet.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>
> It's absolutely not worth it anyway.
>
> Well, you pay some compile time (power bill), and some MB disk space for
> multilib gcc and glibc, but those don't get updated too often.
>
> 5,3M /lib32
> 181M /usr/lib32
>
> (full blown 32bit multilib, I can even run Oracle 10g XE 32bit)
> So that additional disk space doesn't really hurt either....
>
> So far I see no real reason not to run multilib on a desktop
> workstation.
>
>
> I like Solaris in that regard: kernel basically is 64bit, but only those
> applications that are made for and really profit from running in 64bit
> are really running 64bit, the rest is 32bit (smaller binaries, less
> memory usage)
>
thanks for the inputs. I'll certainly leave it alone if that's all that's saved.
Cheers,
Mark