On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:35:04 -0700
Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net> 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/...
>
ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/local/fedora/26/i386/os/Packages/bellet-relea...
>
ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/remi/fedora/26/remi/i386/remi-release-26-2.fc...
>
ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/rpmfusion/free/fedora/releases/26/Everything/...
>
ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/linux/rpmfusion/nonfree/fedora/releases/26/Everythi...
>
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