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