RW wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:51:52 -0500 (EST)
"Questions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:44:03 -0500 (EST)
"Questions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

However,  when I try FreeBSD/amd64, grub won't compile (it's
architecture is forced to i386 only in the Makefile.  I haven't dug
into why, but I'm confident there is a reason. Obviously, grub
becomes a non-option.  Gag has the same limitation of being i386

I'm not sure why gag is i386 only, all it does is install a binary
floppy disk ISO. You can also install it from many Linux live CDs.
Once it's installed it's independent of the original installation

Probably because architecture stuff and bit length in 32-bit is half :)? Instruction set's a bit different too. There are some new features in the new Intel processors like overflow protection, etc, so I wouldn't doubt there are differences in ISA at the assembler level.


To help anyone out who is also attempting to dualboot FreeBSD/amd64
and Vista:  here is what I did.

Install Vista first.   Use the disk manager to create a partition (or
resize the partition) to make room for FreeBSD.

reboot,  and install FreeBSD, installing a standard MBR (the machine
will reboot directly into FreeBSD)

After back into a fresh FreeBSD,  do:
sysinstall > Configure > Distributions > lib32   (this installs 32bit
compatibility libraries.

Now fetch
(yes,  the i386 package)

pkg_add grub.tgz

It will now work in compatibility mode,  and you can use it same as
you can with a native FreeBSD/i386.

FWIW gag will work without any of that, and will carry on working if
you replace the FreeBSD partition.

Yeah, but grub provides more power in choosing your load options though. Besides, gag has an ugly bootloader screen >_>.. I only use gag when I'm not afforded a choice with FreeBSD's bootloader and then grub.
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to