On Monday 11 July 2005 14:53, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eduardo Costa Lisboa wrote:
> > On 7/10/05, John Gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, the time is getting near, and I see that 6.1 was launched just in
> > > time too (-;
> > >
> > > I should be getting my Dual Opteron in the next two weeks or so. I plan
> > > to build a mainly 64 bit system with 32 bit libs in /lib32 for thos
> > > apps that need them.
>
> [...]
>
> > Oh, but as far as I know, maybe you will have to chroot in a 32-bit
> > system to use applications like flash or java.
>
> I don't use flash (tried it once, hated it) or java, but my systems do
> use realplayer which is another 32-bit binary. In a working multilib
> you shouldn't need to chroot to use 32-bit plugins (yes, I know debian
> recommend that, and I can see advantages for non-trustworthy binaries,
> but also inconveniences such as making it harder to save to "normal"
> directories without circumventing the chroot e.g. by mount --bind). You
> _will_ need to research the dependencies of the binaries, e.g.
> realplayer needs lib/lib{atk,gtk,pango} and working back you end up with
> 32-bit png and X among others. So, you end up building and installing
> 32-bit stuff for /lib, then overwriting the programs (but not libraries)
> with the 64-bit.
>
That was my understanding too.
> I'm waiting to see how people build with lib [64-bit] and lib32, both
> for the toolchain and for using third-party binaries, before attempting
> it. For what I want, X seems to be the big fly in the ointment, at
> least until 7.0 is released which will maybe support DESTDIR.
>
This was my plan, build the 64 bit stuff into /lib and then build 32 stuff
in /lib32, since 64 bit is the future (-;
> At the moment I've got enough problems trying to work out what I'm
> doing wrong in cross-building i686 to x86_64 multilib (lib|lib64)
> (summary: no libgcc_s in /tools/lib64). The lib|lib32 arrangement
> sounds to be the best way to go for x86_64 [1], but I
> think these are still early days.
>
> > > I'll also be using grub, since it only loads up at the start, I don't
> > > mind the PC running in 32 bit mode for a second or so.
> >
> > A newbie's question: does it make any diference compiling grub 32 or
> > 64-bit? Maybe the size of the hard disk? :-P
>
> I believe the processors start in some sort of compatability mode.
> But the difference between building grub 32-bit and 64-bit is that
> 32-bit works (they tell me, I don't use grub).
>
As far as I know, the Opterons just run 32 or 64 bit natively, so as I
understand it, I can boot with a 32 bit grub and have it hand over to the 64
bit Linux system, but I could be wrong.
> For a bootloader that builds with a 64-bit system there's always lilo
> (plus nasm, bin86 with a patch).
>
And having to boot with a rescue disk to run liloconfig when you've changed
kernels and forgot to run it before rebooting, and dealing with LI errors
and, no thanks. I'll stick with grub. Personally, I don't understand why grub
is still 32-bit only. You'd think it was written in Redmond or something (-;
Cheers,
John Gay
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
