| 1 |
Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 07 Dec 2011 17:15:47 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> the advantage is that it should obsolete the separate kgcc64 package for |
| 4 |
> most people. and i think it might help out with the multilib bootstrap |
| 5 |
> issue: you can't build multilib gcc without a multilib glibc, and can't |
| 6 |
> build a multilib glibc without a multilib gcc, but i think you should be |
| 7 |
> able to build a multilib glibc with a multiarch gcc, and then a multilib |
| 8 |
> gcc after that. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
1) Will this allow building grub from amd64/no-multilib, thus avoiding |
| 11 |
having to have grub-static? That's the one thing I don't like about no- |
| 12 |
multilib, having to use the pre-built grub-static. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
2) What about grub-2, and while we're on it, is a switch to that expected |
| 15 |
any time soon, and/or is there a grub-static-2 in the wings? With the |
| 16 |
grub-1 gpt patches (and hopefully btrfs support at some point) I'm not |
| 17 |
sure that staying with grub-1 isn't my preference in any case, but I do |
| 18 |
worry how long that's going to be viable, especially with btrfs coming |
| 19 |
and no grub-1 btrfs support that I'm aware of, and I have literally /no/ |
| 20 |
idea what might or might not be in gentoo's pipeline, |
| 21 |
grub-wise. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
3) One thing I very much like about no-multilib is the shorter gcc (and |
| 24 |
glibc) builds. This will kill that (for gcc), right? USE flag activated |
| 25 |
to avoid that for those who want to? (Of course I realize that it's |
| 26 |
unlikely I can keep/get both the shorter gcc builds and support for grub |
| 27 |
builds.) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives