On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Steven Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote:
> I agree with you that gratuitous changes to this are risky, but I do > not have access to 32-bit systems, so I don't see a lot of choice on > this (and various users have vendor-provided libraries that are > 32-bit, so I have to support linking those). Note that I'm building > with multilib support, so if I did produce 32-bit binaries (e.g., > provide an x86-32.rhel.5, for example), then that would be > cross-compiled anyway, not native. In this specific case, I have a 32-bit ISO image, but no machine to build it on, unless I was to bake it on my own VMware Workstation/Fusion-driven VM, and use that. It wouldn't be joined to AD, wouldn't be visible from the internal VPN or network, because it would be running on a machine not attached to the network, so that may be a dead-end. I'll ping you the location internally under separate cover, so you can play with it if you want. The other solution is to build it on an equivalent CentOS 32-bit image, which is RPM-for-RPM compatible with what RHEL provides, then copy the binaries internally, and use -those- binaries to produce a compiled version after that. I realize it's not the best solution, but may get you past this cross-compile hurdle.
_______________________________________________ EFS-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev
