On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez <cyklon...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 10/04/2016 06:24 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> >  This would actually be another reason to get rid of grub-0, if it can't
> >  build on one of our profiles, it will more than likely never be fixed
> >  upstream because they are now focused on grub-2.x.
>
> grub-0 is 32-bit software. You could build it without multilib but you need
> the dependencies like any other package (and link them statically). And
> there
> are other packages on the tree that don't build on all profiles.
>

USE="abi_x86_32"

?

>> Another alternative would be simply hard-masking it, but leaving it in
> >> place for those who want it.  It does still work, and I see no evidence
> >> we're removing it due to security issues or breakage.
> >
> > We are removing it because upstream has a new version of the software
> > and has moved on from this one. For most packages, if foo-1.0 is
> > stable, then foo-2.0 comes to stable, after some point we remove foo-1.0
> > from the tree.
>
> Grub2 is not really a new version, it's a different product with different
> use cases. I don't use grub-0 to boot any of my gentoo boxes but I use it
> for
> some embedded x86 projects so it's convenient to be able build it off the
> tree. I remember trying grub2 on one of them a while back and IIRC it more
> than doubled the size of the image.
>
> Just my 2 cents worth.
>
> --
>
> Fernando Rodriguez
>
>

Reply via email to