| 1 |
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:20:36 -0700 |
| 4 |
> From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> |
| 5 |
> Reply-To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
| 6 |
> To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
| 7 |
> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Considering going no-multilib |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> As the title suggests, I'm considering going no-multilib, given that I |
| 10 |
> don't use 32-bit software in general, anyway. It would sure save compile |
| 11 |
> time on glibc and gcc, and would eliminate the issues I seem to get |
| 12 |
> with 32-bit compile failures when I compile glibc using gcc4, as well as |
| 13 |
> /greatly/ simplifying my Gentoo life, at a cost of giving up something I |
| 14 |
> don't really use anyway. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Question. If I do so, will grub still compile for me, or will I have to |
| 17 |
> use grub-static (I /guess/ that's the binary-only ebuild?)? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Hmm... the package.mask for no-multilib includes sys-boot/grub, so I |
| 20 |
> apparently answered my own question... Still. |
| 21 |
> confirmation/comments/suggestions would be appreciated. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
lilo can be compiled and works without multilib |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives