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 1PQk2v-0004B2-1S for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:12:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 33602E0ACB for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:12:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE554E07F8 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws8 with SMTP id 8so1810898vws.40 for ; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:39:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bk/cbOozRzSTEPs+MjaW+AY6lpTKooIGpNCxQ+laSVE=; b=GQt8RhQ0Th5cI7hZYOzuIvQVxGUmCN9kQY4w1vCIP68S10xBj3DzSX0qC2zJR/0cYt Xob2CwirJcANc4OBpPXm/y606IAmN61e0jyQskgU+Lt5JUs++NVm+BwP27l4uOaxbIE7 byW8RO+nQayFKUtOwVCVH8I6RG7jyxmNEI1MQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XTPun1zJFxiSwSwUbxcVqX3/SF+d4QIN1h4hwjPVdjaiGKADK77BCXytzrDsypLyPS JJBJs0YLDXeJWRVJmPNUQnLcz2uUj6qzXksAXeMtQ7GyIRP2RzF9AFZmDjzHe3cWf5iy GYp5c72yIvjQ299hYh7unKh28rjS6KbmOAsGs= Received: by 10.220.91.144 with SMTP id n16mr2628838vcm.156.1291912792178; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:39:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (adsl-95-133-127.jan.bellsouth.net [98.95.133.127]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e18sm777031vbm.5.2010.12.09.08.39.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:39:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D010655.5070302@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:39:49 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101109 Gentoo/2.0.10 SeaMonkey/2.0.10 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 To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: About to install on a 64 bit system. Advice wanted. References: <4CFFF5DE.20303@gmail.com> <4D001CFF.60502@gmail.com> <201012081913.19278.stsander@sblan.net> <4D006571.7040807@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c75a60bf-8ee0-4096-a2eb-6ec9b09502e6 X-Archives-Hash: a81016a2247e5e824b3680ceed25217f 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 :-) :-)