kutani wrote:Calling a program 64-bit when it isn't actually 64-bit is pretty misleading. Unless your definition of 64-bit is "Runs on 64 bit systems if they are also 32 bit systems."
The 64 bit package is in no way 64 bit, and it should not be listed as such. Misleading and disappointing for anyone with a pure 64 bit system!
In distro packaging, this has to be done sometimes, so it's not entirely misleading. In theory, here is the difference between a 32bit package and a "64bit" package, in which both executables are 32bit:
* The 32bit package does not depend on multilib or 32bit counterparts for currently installed dependencies.
* The "64bit" package requires further dependencies on your 64bit system that are multilib or specifically 32bit.
* The "64bit" package may ship with its own 32bit libraries, where the 32bit package relies on your package manager.
For instance, say there is a game in which the executable is 32bit and requires
libsdl-sound. The author provides two different packages: 32bit and "64bit". If you are on a 32bit distro, you may already have libsdl-sound installed, and so installing the 32bit package will work without a hitch. If you don't have libsdl-sound installed, it will be pulled in as a dependency. If you are on a 64bit distro, even if you already have libsdl-sound installed, it's not enough, since the libsdl-sound package on your system is 64bit. So the installing the "64bit" package will pull in libsdl-sound_32bit as a dependency. And so on.
If you try to install the 32bit package on a 64bit system because you know the executables are really 32bit, you may bump into issues during installation, or the install may finish successfully, but the game will not run because you do not have the compatible 32bit libraries and dependencies it requires.