On 10/13/2016 10:21 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 13/10/16 10:13 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Fernando Rodriguez
>> <cyklon...@gmail.com <mailto: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"
>> ?
> Yes, that's how it's supported on multilib.  Note though it still
> needs a multilib profile in order to have an abi_x86_32 libc;
> grub-static exists to support systems where there is no abi_x86_32
> libc installed, such as those systems using the no-multilib profile.

I didn't mean it's supported by gentoo but that is possible to build it
without a 32-bit *system* libc. Just bundle it and link it statically like
firefox does with it's deps. grub-static probably makes more sense (that's
a binary package right?). I just meant that this is not a sign that the
package it's broken upstream as the comment implied.


Fernando Rodriguez

Reply via email to