Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:15:47 -0500 as excerpted:
> the advantage is that it should obsolete the separate kgcc64 package for
> most people. and i think it might help out with the multilib bootstrap
> issue: you can't build multilib gcc without a multilib glibc, and can't
> build a multilib glibc without a multilib gcc, but i think you should be
> able to build a multilib glibc with a multiarch gcc, and then a multilib
> gcc after that.
1) Will this allow building grub from amd64/no-multilib, thus avoiding
having to have grub-static? That's the one thing I don't like about no-
multilib, having to use the pre-built grub-static.
2) What about grub-2, and while we're on it, is a switch to that expected
any time soon, and/or is there a grub-static-2 in the wings? With the
grub-1 gpt patches (and hopefully btrfs support at some point) I'm not
sure that staying with grub-1 isn't my preference in any case, but I do
worry how long that's going to be viable, especially with btrfs coming
and no grub-1 btrfs support that I'm aware of, and I have literally /no/
idea what might or might not be in gentoo's pipeline,
3) One thing I very much like about no-multilib is the shorter gcc (and
glibc) builds. This will kill that (for gcc), right? USE flag activated
to avoid that for those who want to? (Of course I realize that it's
unlikely I can keep/get both the shorter gcc builds and support for grub
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman