1 |
On 14/10/16 10:22 AM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: |
2 |
> On 10/13/2016 10:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
3 |
>> On 13/10/16 10:13 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez |
5 |
>>> <cyklonite@×××××.com <mailto:cyklonite@×××××.com>> wrote: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
8 |
>>> > |
9 |
>>> > This would actually be another reason to get rid of grub-0, if it can't |
10 |
>>> > build on one of our profiles, it will more than likely never be fixed |
11 |
>>> > upstream because they are now focused on grub-2.x. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> grub-0 is 32-bit software. You could build it without multilib but |
14 |
>>> you need |
15 |
>>> the dependencies like any other package (and link them |
16 |
>>> statically). And there |
17 |
>>> are other packages on the tree that don't build on all profiles. |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> |
20 |
>>> USE="abi_x86_32" |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>>> ? |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> Yes, that's how it's supported on multilib. Note though it still |
25 |
>> needs a multilib profile in order to have an abi_x86_32 libc; |
26 |
>> grub-static exists to support systems where there is no abi_x86_32 |
27 |
>> libc installed, such as those systems using the no-multilib profile. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I didn't mean it's supported by gentoo but that is possible to build it |
30 |
> without a 32-bit *system* libc. Just bundle it and link it statically like |
31 |
> firefox does with it's deps. grub-static probably makes more sense (that's |
32 |
> a binary package right?). I just meant that this is not a sign that the |
33 |
> package it's broken upstream as the comment implied. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
Ahh, ok. So you're just confirming what cyklonite mentioned. I |
38 |
didn't get that the first time around. |
39 |
|
40 |
To the specifics though, no it doesn't make sense to bundle a copy of |
41 |
glibc so that it can be built 32bit in order to support linking grub:0 |
42 |
to it; if anyone -really- wants to build grub:0 on a pure64 platform |
43 |
then they can use a 32bit crossdev to do it, just like they'd have to |
44 |
do to build anything else that's 32bit only on a pure64 install. |