| 1 |
Stan Sander wrote: |
| 2 |
> Wednesday 08 December 2010 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>> One thing that I think some folks (me included) do that differs from |
| 7 |
>>> the guide (at least the last time I read it) is to use grub-static |
| 8 |
>>> instead of grub. I suspect that's because it's 32-bit and more |
| 9 |
>>> compatible. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Other than that I can't think of anything I do differently. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Best of luck with the new install. I'm sure it will go great. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> Cheers, |
| 16 |
>>> Mark |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. I made a note of it. I certainly |
| 21 |
>> don't want that to mess up. lol |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Dale |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> :-) :-) |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> In addition to using grub-static, you will need to have the IA32 Emulation enabled in your kernel, else you won't be able to execute grub at all. It's under file formats / Emulations in the menu. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Glad you posted this. I looked at the USE flags for grub not a package |
| 33 |
called grub-static. That seems to be two different beasts. I never |
| 34 |
knew that package existed. Would emerging the plain grub with the |
| 35 |
static USE flag give the same results? I would think not else they |
| 36 |
would just have one package but am curious just the same. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Thanks. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Dale |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
:-) :-) |
Archives