On 8/10/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Archaic wrote: > > >LILO is reported to work for 64 bit. You don't seem to be acknowledging > >that since all I can see is talk of silo, colo, and grub. > > > > > Actually I don't want to add any packages. I have talked to some people > that have actually built grub on a 64 bit architecture. But this still > lives a whole in the other 64 bit architectures. > > -- > ------ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > LFS User # 2577 > Registered Linux User # 299986 > > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page >
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 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
