| 1 |
Alex Alexander wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 18:55, Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I'm thinking, AT THE MOMENT, of going multilib and grub-static. That way |
| 5 |
>> down the road, I can switch to no-multilib and not have to reinstall grub. |
| 6 |
>> To simple huh? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Dale |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> :-) :-) |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> There's absolutely no reason for you not to use multilib. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Why waste the opportunity to run 32bit applications? You'll never |
| 17 |
> regret running multilib, infact you'll soon forget it. If, on the |
| 18 |
> other hand, you choose to run no-multilib, one day you'll have to run |
| 19 |
> a 32bit app (that day will come, simple Murphy laws) and you'll have |
| 20 |
> to set up a 32bit chroot for it :) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Grub is *not* an issue, I've never used grub-static on any amd64 |
| 23 |
> system, sys-boot/grub works great. Lilo works, yes, but it really is |
| 24 |
> old tech. Grub's interactive boot menu is invaluable and can save you |
| 25 |
> when something goes wrong. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Don't forget that the current multilib implementation doesn't compile |
| 28 |
> things twice. It just provides the environment and 32bit libraries |
| 29 |
> required for 32bit applications to build and run. Anything that |
| 30 |
> supports 64bit builds and runs as 64bit, period :) |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'm working on installing the GUI part now. I did go multilib for now. |
| 35 |
This should work better until everything works with 64 bit. I sure |
| 36 |
would hate to run into a problem with something I have to have and then |
| 37 |
have to reinstall all this again. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I did go with grub-static. Plain grub pulled in something HUGE. This |
| 40 |
is one less program to have to deal with. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Thanks. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Dale |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
:-) :-) |
Archives