1 |
Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> posted 45866BE0.20905@g.o, |
2 |
excerpted below, on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:22:24 +0200: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
5 |
>> What's wrong with the GRUB source package? I remember using grub-static |
6 |
>> when I first went 64 bit, but haven't used it for ages. The only 32 bit |
7 |
>> stuff I use here is firefox-bin and vmware. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> No problem, but it's 32bit. |
10 |
|
11 |
Indeed... for backward compatibility, amd64/x86_64 boots in 32-bit mode. |
12 |
Actually, I /believe/ it boots in 16-bit real mode, just like an x86, then |
13 |
switches to 32-bit or 64-bit when the appropriate command is given, but |
14 |
AFAIK the difference between compiling 16-bit and 32-bit code is simply a |
15 |
few compile-time switches, so it uses a standard 32-bit toolchain. |
16 |
|
17 |
My point, however, was that since everything else I run is 64-bit, if I |
18 |
didn't need the 32-bit tools to compile grub -- or if I was willing to |
19 |
settle for the pre-compiled grub-static -- I could save myself a *LOT* of |
20 |
extra work by simply using the no-multilib subprofile, thus saving myself |
21 |
all that time compiling the 32-bit side of glibc and gcc in particular. |
22 |
|
23 |
One of these days maybe I'll probably just do it, unmerging grub, merging |
24 |
grub-static, switching to the no-multilib subprofile and remerging |
25 |
glibc/binutils/gcc (they may have to be remerged in a particular order, |
26 |
which I don't know at this point). However, I've been thinking that for |
27 |
awhile and haven't done it yet, and I'll be upgrading my pair of Opteron |
28 |
242s to dual-core 285s pretty soon here, making it that much less |
29 |
necessary since compiles will be rather faster then, so who knows? |
30 |
|
31 |
Hmm... thinking about it as I write this, something new occurred to me. |
32 |
There's a good probability I could compile grub independent of my system's |
33 |
portage, using a LiveCD (either Gentoo or other), and could therefore go |
34 |
no-multilib without losing my self-compiled grub, if I decided to. I'll |
35 |
have to think on it a bit more. OTOH, simply using grub-static would be |
36 |
far less hassle for what amounts to the same thing, since using a gcc I |
37 |
didn't build myself would leave outside influences on the produced grub |
38 |
anyway. Still, part of what was holding me up was the "just in case" |
39 |
factor, for other 32-bit software as well, and now that I realize I could |
40 |
compile it from a liveCD 32-bit environment or the like if necessary, that |
41 |
pretty much does away with /that/ particular excuse. |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
45 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
46 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |