On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Andy Neebel wrote: > > I haven't been able to do LFS on my tower for a while, but I know that > I had grub building in 64bit on it once. I have an x86_64, and iirc, > grub 0.93 didn't like 64bit, but 0.94 did. That's about the newest > grub that I have used as I haven't had a chance to use linux on my > tower since then for the most part. (I wish I had, but things tend to > happen that cause trouble there.) > > Anyways, don't know if that helps at all. Going back versions maybe > isn't the best idea, but it might allow you to at least keep the same > bootloader. Though I never did build a pure-64 system, but I didn't > have to pass -m32 to the later versions, and the grub dir was > x86_64-unknown, so I think it was building 64-bit images. > > Andy Neebel
Sorry, Andy, grub-0.94 is no different from 0.97 on my pure64 - configure passes -m32 to gcc, at which point it fails. Definitely needs a biarch/multilib toolchain. FWIW, 0.93 gave "unsupported CPU type". Ken -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
