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
