On 2017-02-21, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 Feb 2017 00:22:51 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:34:47 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> > Reading https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Binary_package_guide still leaves
>> >
>> > me uncertain. I have an ancient 32-bit Atom netbook. I've installed
>> > uclibc-ng Gentoo on it. Building big packages on it is a pain. I can
>> > do an identical install in a QEMU VM, and distcc into it. But that
>> > doesn't catch all compiling work.
>> >
>> > What I'd like to do is build binaries in a chroot on my desktop,
>> >
>> > assuming a 32-bit uclibc-ng chroot on a 64-bit glibc host is possible.
>> > Because the cpus are different, I would need to use different CFLAGS
>> > (and CXXFLAGS) variables for when the host updates its own files, versus
>> > when it builds files for the netbook.
>>
>> If the chroot is identical to your netbooks's install in terms of
>> *FLAGS, USE, @world etc, then yes. I used to do it this way when I had an
>> Atom netbook. I even build for a low memory 486 system in the same way.
>
> You'll need to run in 32bit mode when chrooting of course:
Why?
Is this some odd restriction in portage?
All of the normal development tools are quite capable of buildign
32-bit binaries on a 64-bit host running a 64-bit kernel.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I am a traffic light,
at and Alan Ginzberg kidnapped
gmail.com my laundry in 1927!
