Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: About to install on a 64 bit system. Advice wanted.

[Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>]

Duncan wrote:
> Dale posted on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:13:21 -0600 as excerpted:
>
>    
>> Stan Sander wrote:
>>      
>    
>>> In addition to using grub-static, you will need to have the IA32
>>> Emulation enabled in your kernel, else you won't be able to execute
>>> grub at all.  It's under file formats / Emulations in the menu.
>>>        
> I think that's covered in the handbook, now, but posting's still good,
> just in case it would have been overlooked.  FWIW when I first switched to
> no-multilib, before I did the 32-bit chroot thing, I tried turning off
> that option in the kernel... and found I couldn't run... I think it was
> lilo I was running at the time, properly, so it's definitely worth
> remembering.
>
>    
>> Glad you posted this.  I looked at the USE flags for grub not a package
>> called grub-static.  That seems to be two different beasts.  I never
>> knew that package existed.  Would emerging the plain grub with the
>> static USE flag give the same results?  I would think not else they
>> would just have one package but am curious just the same.
>>      
> The grub-static package is actually a pre-built grub (obviously built with
> the static USE flag), binpkged by gentoo/amd64, with an ebuild to unpack
> and install it, for those that want/need it.  With both lilo and grub,
> parts are 32-bit (or actually, 16-bit) only, as that's the mode all x86
> computers even x86_64/amd64 computers start their boot in, so that's what
> at least part of an x86 bootloader must be built in.  As such, the grub
> package remains hard-masked in the no-multilib profiles (someone at one
> point claimed it should build, but I haven't tried and am skeptical,
> especially when it's still hard-masked for no-multilib), where grub-static
> is the recommended bootloader.
>
> But grub-static actually /is/ a binpkged grub, built on either a 32-bit
> only machine or a 64-bit machine with multilib (I'm not sure which), with
> an ebuild that simply unpacks the binpkg, and puts the files where they
> need to go when it's installed.  As such, emerging grub with the static
> and other USE flags set as in the binpkg, should get something quite
> similar, yes.  But there's some particulars there I'm not sure of (the
> boot part should be identical, but I'm not sure if the part run on a
> normally running machine gets compiled in 32-bit mode or in 64-bit mode on
> a 64-bit machine, and that could be critical), so I'm not sure whether
> it'd be an exact replacement or not.
>
>    

So the static version is like OOo-bin then?  That makes sense.  I may 
try the plain one at first and see if it works.  If not, I can switch to 
the static one.  It's not like it will take hours to install on a 4 core 
CPU running at 3.2Ghz.  lol  If I blink, I may miss it.  :/

Thanks

Dale

:-)  :-)