1 |
Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> Dale posted on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:13:21 -0600 as excerpted: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Stan Sander wrote: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
> |
8 |
>>> In addition to using grub-static, you will need to have the IA32 |
9 |
>>> Emulation enabled in your kernel, else you won't be able to execute |
10 |
>>> grub at all. It's under file formats / Emulations in the menu. |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
> I think that's covered in the handbook, now, but posting's still good, |
13 |
> just in case it would have been overlooked. FWIW when I first switched to |
14 |
> no-multilib, before I did the 32-bit chroot thing, I tried turning off |
15 |
> that option in the kernel... and found I couldn't run... I think it was |
16 |
> lilo I was running at the time, properly, so it's definitely worth |
17 |
> remembering. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> |
20 |
>> Glad you posted this. I looked at the USE flags for grub not a package |
21 |
>> called grub-static. That seems to be two different beasts. I never |
22 |
>> knew that package existed. Would emerging the plain grub with the |
23 |
>> static USE flag give the same results? I would think not else they |
24 |
>> would just have one package but am curious just the same. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
> The grub-static package is actually a pre-built grub (obviously built with |
27 |
> the static USE flag), binpkged by gentoo/amd64, with an ebuild to unpack |
28 |
> and install it, for those that want/need it. With both lilo and grub, |
29 |
> parts are 32-bit (or actually, 16-bit) only, as that's the mode all x86 |
30 |
> computers even x86_64/amd64 computers start their boot in, so that's what |
31 |
> at least part of an x86 bootloader must be built in. As such, the grub |
32 |
> package remains hard-masked in the no-multilib profiles (someone at one |
33 |
> point claimed it should build, but I haven't tried and am skeptical, |
34 |
> especially when it's still hard-masked for no-multilib), where grub-static |
35 |
> is the recommended bootloader. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> But grub-static actually /is/ a binpkged grub, built on either a 32-bit |
38 |
> only machine or a 64-bit machine with multilib (I'm not sure which), with |
39 |
> an ebuild that simply unpacks the binpkg, and puts the files where they |
40 |
> need to go when it's installed. As such, emerging grub with the static |
41 |
> and other USE flags set as in the binpkg, should get something quite |
42 |
> similar, yes. But there's some particulars there I'm not sure of (the |
43 |
> boot part should be identical, but I'm not sure if the part run on a |
44 |
> normally running machine gets compiled in 32-bit mode or in 64-bit mode on |
45 |
> a 64-bit machine, and that could be critical), so I'm not sure whether |
46 |
> it'd be an exact replacement or not. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> |
49 |
|
50 |
So the static version is like OOo-bin then? That makes sense. I may |
51 |
try the plain one at first and see if it works. If not, I can switch to |
52 |
the static one. It's not like it will take hours to install on a 4 core |
53 |
CPU running at 3.2Ghz. lol If I blink, I may miss it. :/ |
54 |
|
55 |
Thanks |
56 |
|
57 |
Dale |
58 |
|
59 |
:-) :-) |