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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
