1 |
Thank you Duncan, |
2 |
I checked this yesterday. In fact I was considering the idea of a |
3 |
chroot last. And I didn't know there's a guide for it. The guide served |
4 |
as a refrence in case I forgot something. |
5 |
|
6 |
In my case, having a separate 32 bit is a better option, since I have a |
7 |
huge external hard disk, and use it mostely as a bootable server for |
8 |
development and testing. In case I run low on resources on my laptop, I |
9 |
just plug this usb drive in any PC and I have a fully running server to |
10 |
deploy and test. After all, I don't that the chroot, is taking a lot of |
11 |
room on my disk, and I'd rather not to use multilib for bad experience I |
12 |
had with it, few years ago. |
13 |
|
14 |
Things are working great for now. |
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
On Tue Mar 16,2010 01:56 am, Duncan wrote: |
18 |
> Mansour Al Akeel posted on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:04:49 -0300 as excerpted: |
19 |
> |
20 |
> > Hello Duncan: |
21 |
> > Pleae read my comments. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > On Sat Mar 13,2010 10:20 pm, Duncan wrote: |
24 |
> >> Volker Armin Hemmann posted on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:29:06 +0100 as |
25 |
> >> excerpted: |
26 |
> >> |
27 |
> >> > On Samstag 13 M??rz 2010, Mansour Al Akeel wrote: |
28 |
> >> >> Hello all, |
29 |
> >> >> |
30 |
> >> >> I have been looking into installing wine and a cross dev tool chain. |
31 |
> >> >> I didn't get much luck, since I have amd64 and I use no-multilib. I |
32 |
> >> >> found this http://bugs.gentoo.org/269439 and I am wondering if any |
33 |
> >> >> one can provide an advice. Is it be possible to run wine on amd64 |
34 |
> >> >> with no-multilib ? |
35 |
> >> > |
36 |
> >> > you won't be able to run any 32bit windows app. Which makes wine |
37 |
> >> > pretty useless. |
38 |
> >> |
39 |
> >> FWIW, I have no-multilib, but with the 32-bit compatibility turned on |
40 |
> >> in the kernel, I'm able to do the 32-bit chroot thing as in the |
41 |
> >> gentoo/amd64 documentation. |
42 |
> >> |
43 |
> >> In my case, I'm doing a full 32-bit chroot image, which then gets |
44 |
> >> transferred to my AA1 netbook. (The big machine has far more memory |
45 |
> >> and power to do the compiles, so it makes more sense to do that and not |
46 |
> >> even have the gentoo tree on the netbook, just transfer over the |
47 |
> >> prebuilt, preconfigured image, and rsync it again after every update. |
48 |
> >> I've never booted the 32-bit image on the big machine, tho, and indeed, |
49 |
> >> couldn't, as the kernel drivers, etc, are all built-in and configured |
50 |
> >> for the netbook.) |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > Are you saying that you have another 32bit gentoo image, and you mount |
53 |
> > it somewhere and chroot to it? If so, what does the memory has to do |
54 |
> > with this ? Can you please elaborate on this ? The space is not a |
55 |
> > concern to me, but I'd rather not mix 32 and 64 libs. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Yes. I have a 32-bit chroot image that gets mounted and chrooted into |
58 |
> (using linux32 chroot ...) as per the gentoo/amd64 32-bit chroot guide. |
59 |
> That works just fine with no-multilib, and indeed, multilib would |
60 |
> duplicate functionality to some degree. Just make sure your kernel has |
61 |
> 32-bit "emulation" turned on (tho it's not really emulation, in the same |
62 |
> way that wine is not an emulator, amd64/x86_64 is true dual-bitness |
63 |
> hardware). |
64 |
> |
65 |
> I posted the link to the guide in the doomsday thread pretty much |
66 |
> concurrently to the discussion here, but for convenience, here's the link: |
67 |
> |
68 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/howtos/index.xml?part=1&chap=2 |
69 |
> |
70 |
> That explains the process and covers the step-by-step quite nicely. I |
71 |
> discuss it in more depth in the doomsday thread, so I'd suggest you read |
72 |
> it if you're seriously interested in this. Meanwhile... |
73 |
> |
74 |
> As mentioned, I use the 32-bit chroot for a somewhat different purpose, |
75 |
> building a separate 32-bit image to run on my 32-bit-only netbook. As |
76 |
> such, I have a fully configured and bootable build-out of the 32-bit as if |
77 |
> it were an entirely separate machine, even if I never boot to it on this |
78 |
> machine, because it is intended to run on a separate machine. However, |
79 |
> while that's a reasonably trivial extension from the 32-bit chroot guide, |
80 |
> it's not why it was written, nor what it directly addresses. But as you |
81 |
> specify, it's definitely entirely separate, no mixed 32/64-bit as multilib |
82 |
> does, or it'd be unsuitable for the 32-bit-only machine usage to which I |
83 |
> put it. So rest assured on that point. The only mixing between the two |
84 |
> systems are mount-binds setup to expose stuff like a common tempdir |
85 |
> between the two systems (and of course that you happen to be running on a |
86 |
> 64-bit host kernel in the first place), and it's relatively trivial to |
87 |
> simply not mount-bind what you specifically don't need. If you're |
88 |
> familiar with chroots, mount-binds for access within the chroot are pretty |
89 |
> standard stuff, and it /is/ a chroot, so it's as entirely separate as a |
90 |
> chroot normally would be. |
91 |
> |
92 |
> As to your specific question "what does the memory have to do with this?", |
93 |
> I don't quite understand the question, so pardon my not answering it |
94 |
> specifically. |
95 |
> |
96 |
> Unless of course you're referring to the fact that you can't normally |
97 |
> combine 32-bit apps with 64-bit libs, or the reverse, a typical source of |
98 |
> newbie confusion (and quite some emerge bugs when the build happens across |
99 |
> the wrong bitness lib before it sees the correct one) on multilib setups. |
100 |
> |
101 |
> That, IMO, is one of the advantages of the separate 32-bit chroot concept, |
102 |
> particularly with no-multilib. The main 64-bit system basically doesn't |
103 |
> know it's there, it's just data to it, and the 32-bit chroot of course |
104 |
> only knows about the parts of the 64-bit system that you've exposed to it |
105 |
> thru bind-mounts, so there's very little chance of getting things mixed |
106 |
> up, unless you deliberately mount a 64-bit libdir into the chroot or |
107 |
> something, and as Gentooers should know by now, Gentoo does specifically |
108 |
> allow you to (metaphorically) point a loaded gun at yourself and pull the |
109 |
> trigger if you want, which is about what deliberately mounting a 64-bit |
110 |
> libdir into the chroot would be doing. |
111 |
> |
112 |
> So... read my detailed response in the doomsday thread and the chroot |
113 |
> guide, and that should give you a far better idea of whether what we're |
114 |
> talking about is useful for you or not. |
115 |
> |
116 |
> Personally, I don't know. Honestly, it's definitely a lot of work, |
117 |
> perhaps more than you're willing to put into it. |
118 |
> |
119 |
> You might be able to do what you want, and would arguably be better off, |
120 |
> switching to a multilib profile and starting with a standard 64-bit |
121 |
> stage-3 tarball again, to rebuild your Linux-side toolchain as multilib. |
122 |
> That'll be some work now, but will definitely be less work maintaining |
123 |
> than a 32-bit chroot. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the wine |
124 |
> and MS platform cross-dev toolchain bit to evaluate what problems you |
125 |
> might or might not have with that. I'm simply assuming it'll "just work" |
126 |
> with a multilib profile, but that's a best-case assumption. |
127 |
> |
128 |
> OTOH, the 32-bit chroot concept, while definitely more work maintaining |
129 |
> (it's roughly comparable work immediately to switching back to multilib, |
130 |
> starting again from a standard multilib-compatible amd64 stage-3 tarball, |
131 |
> but the 32-bit chroot will be more work maintaining over time as you'll be |
132 |
> having to update stuff both on the main machine and in the chroot), *IS* a |
133 |
> cleaner, more logically separate, solution. And, installing a 32-bit wine/ |
134 |
> MS-platform cross-dev is much more likely a known quantity with any bug |
135 |
> you might happen across much more common, than the dual bitness multilib |
136 |
> concept. |
137 |
> |
138 |
> The thought occurs to me that it may hinge on 64-bit MS cross-dev status |
139 |
> and whether you anticipate doing both 32-bit and 64-bit development, or |
140 |
> only 32-bit. It's possible multilib would enable both, while you'd very |
141 |
> likely have to have separate 32-bit and 64-bit cross-dev arrangements too, |
142 |
> if your Linux host is separate 32-bit and 64-bit, as with the chroot |
143 |
> solution. If you're not interested in the 64-bit MS side at all, that's |
144 |
> not an issue. Likewise if your cross-dev solution doesn't include a |
145 |
> 64-bit MS side at all. But if you are and it does, then going the |
146 |
> separate 32-bit chroot route on the Linux side probably necessitates a |
147 |
> separate cross-dev for each as well, thus an even higher continuing |
148 |
> maintenance burden choosing the separate chroot route. |
149 |
> |
150 |
> -- |
151 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
152 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
153 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
154 |
> |
155 |
> |