1 |
On 2017-02-21, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday 21 Feb 2017 00:22:51 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:34:47 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: |
4 |
>> > Reading https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Binary_package_guide still leaves |
5 |
>> > |
6 |
>> > me uncertain. I have an ancient 32-bit Atom netbook. I've installed |
7 |
>> > uclibc-ng Gentoo on it. Building big packages on it is a pain. I can |
8 |
>> > do an identical install in a QEMU VM, and distcc into it. But that |
9 |
>> > doesn't catch all compiling work. |
10 |
>> > |
11 |
>> > What I'd like to do is build binaries in a chroot on my desktop, |
12 |
>> > |
13 |
>> > assuming a 32-bit uclibc-ng chroot on a 64-bit glibc host is possible. |
14 |
>> > Because the cpus are different, I would need to use different CFLAGS |
15 |
>> > (and CXXFLAGS) variables for when the host updates its own files, versus |
16 |
>> > when it builds files for the netbook. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> If the chroot is identical to your netbooks's install in terms of |
19 |
>> *FLAGS, USE, @world etc, then yes. I used to do it this way when I had an |
20 |
>> Atom netbook. I even build for a low memory 486 system in the same way. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> You'll need to run in 32bit mode when chrooting of course: |
23 |
|
24 |
Why? |
25 |
|
26 |
Is this some odd restriction in portage? |
27 |
|
28 |
All of the normal development tools are quite capable of buildign |
29 |
32-bit binaries on a 64-bit host running a 64-bit kernel. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I am a traffic light, |
33 |
at and Alan Ginzberg kidnapped |
34 |
gmail.com my laundry in 1927! |