From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PQj3G-0001zh-PH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:09:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DACEE09F8 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sblan.net (siren.sblan.net [67.41.4.245]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DEDE085A for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:22:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from siren.localnet (siren.sblan.net [IPv6:2001:470:d:476::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by sblan.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oB9FMkkM014436 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 08:22:46 -0700 From: Stan Sander To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] About to install on a 64 bit system. Advice wanted. Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 08:22:36 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r3-Stan; KDE/4.5.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <4CFFF5DE.20303@gmail.com> <201012081913.19278.stsander@sblan.net> <4D006571.7040807@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D006571.7040807@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1465159.eILAtNhBgo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012090822.45379.stsander@sblan.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.85 () ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on IPv6:2001:470:d:476::1 X-Archives-Salt: 572994d0-eacc-466f-b82a-0671f1e0b969 X-Archives-Hash: a9b96cc9c9041922e6cea295c3034b4f --nextPart1465159.eILAtNhBgo Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wednesday 08 December 2010 >=20 > Glad you posted this. I looked at the USE flags for grub not a package=20 > called grub-static. That seems to be two different beasts. I never=20 > knew that package existed. Would emerging the plain grub with the=20 > static USE flag give the same results? I would think not else they=20 > would just have one package but am curious just the same. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > Dale No, the static use flag in grub does not do the same thing. If you run a n= o-multilib profile (in other words pure 64-bit) you need to run grub-static= if you are going to use grub as a boot loader. As Frank said, lilo is sti= ll maintained and is a viable choice. So that's what it comes down to, you= r choices -- lilo or grub, multilib or no-multilib. Personally I've run no= =2Dmultilib for some time now and have not ever wished otherwise since I ma= de the switch. If you run a multilib profile, you can use the regular grub= package (or lilo) with whatever USE flags suit your needs. You can also u= se grub-static in a multilib profile. If you select the no-multilib profil= e grub will be hard masked. =2D-=20 Stan & HD Tashi Grad 10/08 Edgewood, NM SWR PR - Cindy and Jenny - Sammamish, WA NWR http://www.sblan.net/tashi --nextPart1465159.eILAtNhBgo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk0A9EUACgkQpStiiGsODQryygCfaVPtINAzOHES5F04PDLzAJTt nY8AnRG5R62v+6ynPkhLBrzrU/AVyMlC =bUal -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1465159.eILAtNhBgo--