Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:09:33AM -0800, Larry Doolittle wrote: > >>Nope. It's not 64-bit clean source code. Besides, I'm >>an old TeX-head, and TeX works just fine. > > > Sounds like a great choice to me. > > >>Jo Shields wrote: >> >>>or lilo/grub >> >>That's a strange special case, since I guess the BIOS jumps >>to the boot sector code in 32-bit mode. I suppose in the long >>run I could "fix" that problem by running LinuxBIOS. > > > It isn't even 32bit mode when the boot loader starts. > > >>How did grub manage to get built before the days of >>/emul/ia32-linux? And that need can hardly explain libg2c0-dev >>libgfortran0-dev. Unless someone rewrote grub in Fortran when >>I wasn't looking. ;-) >> >>Will multi-arch make the situation cleaner or dirtier for >>people like me who only want support for one arch variant? > > > I doubt it would be cleaner.
At the very least you wouldn't need to overcome years of muscle memory typing /e<tab> for /etc. To me that's the wors thing about /emul/ia32-linux -- they should have named it something else. -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
