On 14 Oct 2011, at 13:57, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > > ??? > > A part of installing a package (in a chroot) might be to run binaries (found > in the chroot). It might be possible to fix it up by running 32 bit binaries > somehow, but I doubt that is feasible. I've not looked at the code, but my sense is that I'm not being clear. If one of the binaries to run to generate the files that go into the iso, were, say gcc, then the inputs for gcc on 32bit and 64 bit are the same, as are the outputs. I could even write the C code so that it ran on either h/w architecture (or ARM, or whatever). > >>> You can use "setarch i686" on x86_64 to build 32 bit images - not the other >>> way around. >> That's great. But not much use to me. Clearly, it's not a capability that's >> going to come soon. At least I know where I stand. > > "come soon"? 64 bit binaries requires a 64 bit kernel which requires a 64 bit > cpu (or an emulator running on 32 bit). You can do that now if you really > want to. With 32 bit being so "last century" I doubt there will ever by any > changes in this area. > > /Mads For me, the issue is that I've got a 32 bit machine that I want to build binaries on and which I don't want to take out of action while I move it to 64bit. More generally, I don't see why I'd not want to use livecd-creator on intel architecture to create a boot iso for any arbitrary target (eg a phone, based on ARM). Surely it makes no sense to have to have an ARM box to build an ARM livecd any more than I need a 64 bit intel machine to produce a 64 bit intel binary.
Tim -- livecd mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd
