| 1 |
Peter Humphrey posted <20051207143042.5d9c07a6@××××.home>, excerpted |
| 2 |
below, on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:30:42 +0000: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:20:36 -0700 |
| 5 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Question. If I do so, will grub still compile for me, or will I have to |
| 8 |
>> use grub-static (I /guess/ that's the binary-only ebuild?)? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I haven't been able to get the 64-bit version to install on my box, so |
| 11 |
> I've been using grub-static anyway. I decided not to make a fuss about it, |
| 12 |
> since I can't see that I lose anything by using the statically compiled |
| 13 |
> version :-) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Thanks, everyone. I haven't yet decided whether I want to go 64-bit only, |
| 16 |
but I've decided being unable to compile grub and therefore having to |
| 17 |
use grub-static, on its own, isn't a big enough issue to stop me going |
| 18 |
64-bit only, if that's what I decide to do. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 22 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 23 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 24 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives