Am I 32-bit, or 64-bit?

[Brian St. Pierre]

On 04/05/2012 09:20 AM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> But... i386 seems to be missing as a possible architecture.  The closest I
> could find was x86.  But this concerned me, because x86_64's bzImage is a soft
> link to x86's.  Anyway, "What the hell," I thought, and compiled it.  Installed
> it.  Booted it.  And it works great!  Until I went to install Chrome.  Chrome
> said, "You're running a 64-bit OS; here's your 64-bit version."  I tried
> installing that, and no soup.  32-bit version installed fine.  So then I
> glanced at "uname -a":

Split the difference and call yourself 48-bit? ;)

I haven't done it recently, or with a far-backported kernel, but have
you considered building a debian/ubuntu kernel package that contains
what you want? It might help make sure everything matches up properly.

E.g.

    https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Kernel/Compile
    http://wiki.debian.org/HowToRebuildAnOfficialDebianKernelPackage

Speaking from experience, you'll have a harder and harder time working
off an old non-LTS Ubuntu version. 10.10 isn't hard to live with now,
but mirrors, PPAs, and relevant advice will disappear pretty quickly
when it EOLs. (9.04 was a pain to work with by January 2011...) I'd
recommend either pinning to 10.04 LTS or 12.04 LTS (due on the 26th),
but that's just my $0.02. If you really want to stay on 10.10, grab a
copy of the DVD torrent now.

--
Brian St. Pierre