| 1 |
Stan Sander wrote: |
| 2 |
> Wednesday 08 December 2010 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Glad you posted this. I looked at the USE flags for grub not a package |
| 7 |
>> called grub-static. That seems to be two different beasts. I never |
| 8 |
>> knew that package existed. Would emerging the plain grub with the |
| 9 |
>> static USE flag give the same results? I would think not else they |
| 10 |
>> would just have one package but am curious just the same. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Thanks. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Dale |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> No, the static use flag in grub does not do the same thing. If you run a no-multilib profile (in other words pure 64-bit) you need to run grub-static if you are going to use grub as a boot loader. As Frank said, lilo is still maintained and is a viable choice. So that's what it comes down to, your choices -- lilo or grub, multilib or no-multilib. Personally I've run no-multilib for some time now and have not ever wished otherwise since I made the switch. If you run a multilib profile, you can use the regular grub package (or lilo) with whatever USE flags suit your needs. You can also use grub-static in a multilib profile. If you select the no-multilib profile grub will be hard masked. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
New info so a new decision. I plan to go no-multilib so looks like I |
| 21 |
will be using grub-static after all. Please disregard the post I sent a |
| 22 |
few seconds ago saying I would try the plain grub first. ;-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Still have no desire to use lilo. lol |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Dale |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
:-) :-) |
Archives