On 14/10/16 10:22 AM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> 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.

Ahh, ok.  So you're just confirming what cyklonite mentioned.  I
didn't get that the first time around.

To the specifics though, no it doesn't make sense to bundle a copy of
glibc so that it can be built 32bit in order to support linking grub:0
to it; if anyone -really- wants to build grub:0 on a pure64 platform
then they can use a 32bit crossdev to do it, just like they'd have to
do to build anything else that's 32bit only on a pure64 install.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to