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 1PQeH5-00067F-OV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:03:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7C3DE0684 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F162EE0962 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PQdN3-0004S7-9i for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:05:05 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:05:05 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:05:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: About to install on a 64 bit system. Advice wanted. Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4CFFF5DE.20303@gmail.com> <4D001CFF.60502@gmail.com> <201012081913.19278.stsander@sblan.net> <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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies; GIT 25ed40d branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 6a07ea8c-153e-4946-9ecd-0dc5581f4731 X-Archives-Hash: ca6525a7bcb53a35096c43ff69137066 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,=20 just in case it would have been overlooked. FWIW when I first switched t= o=20 no-multilib, before I did the 32-bit chroot thing, I tried turning off=20 that option in the kernel... and found I couldn't run... I think it was=20 lilo I was running at the time, properly, so it's definitely worth=20 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 wit= h=20 the static USE flag), binpkged by gentoo/amd64, with an ebuild to unpack=20 and install it, for those that want/need it. With both lilo and grub,=20 parts are 32-bit (or actually, 16-bit) only, as that's the mode all x86=20 computers even x86_64/amd64 computers start their boot in, so that's what= =20 at least part of an x86 bootloader must be built in. As such, the grub=20 package remains hard-masked in the no-multilib profiles (someone at one=20 point claimed it should build, but I haven't tried and am skeptical,=20 especially when it's still hard-masked for no-multilib), where grub-stati= c=20 is the recommended bootloader. But grub-static actually /is/ a binpkged grub, built on either a 32-bit=20 only machine or a 64-bit machine with multilib (I'm not sure which), with= =20 an ebuild that simply unpacks the binpkg, and puts the files where they=20 need to go when it's installed. As such, emerging grub with the static=20 and other USE flags set as in the binpkg, should get something quite=20 similar, yes. But there's some particulars there I'm not sure of (the=20 boot part should be identical, but I'm not sure if the part run on a=20 normally running machine gets compiled in 32-bit mode or in 64-bit mode o= n=20 a 64-bit machine, and that could be critical), so I'm not sure whether=20 it'd be an exact replacement or not. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman