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
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 hav
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 06:48:20PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
>
> Then, at least for consistency, I will prefer an homogeneous solution for all
> archs. If that implies to build some 32 bits tools to can compile the
> bootloaders, go for it.
We still can't achieve one bootloader for all arches
El Miércoles, 10 de Agosto de 2005 23:18, Jim Gifford escribió:
> I've been working on our cross-lfs build methods quite a bit lately, but
> have ran into some dead ends when it comes to the bootloaders for all
> the architectures we support. None of them will build properly on a Pure
> 64 bit syst
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Does LILO work for sparcs and/or MIPS machines?
No bug Grub 2 is scheduled to support Sparc, x86, and ppc, but only as
32 bit. Currently none of the MIPS bootloaders that I'm familar with
will boot a ELF64 object, arcboot and colo.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
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.
Does LILO work for sparcs and/or MIPS machines?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/f
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
liv
Jim Gifford wrote:
I was having this problem for a while, I've been working with the Silo
maintainer for a few weeks now, but there is no way to build a 64 bit
silo. Colo for the raq2 MIPS and Grub, also seem to have this problem.
I guess a 32 Bit loader is the unwritten law for bootloaders.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:57:31PM -0700, Jim Gifford wrote:
>
> I was having this problem for a while, I've been working with the Silo
> maintainer for a few weeks now, but there is no way to build a 64 bit
> silo. Colo for the raq2 MIPS and Grub, also seem to have this problem. I
> guess a 32
John Miller wrote:
I have only been a lurker on the list, but since I stirred up all the
trouble over bootloaders with my thread I should probably say
something. I used lilo for my pure 64 bit system and it built just
fine. Since sometime towards the end of 2004 lilo no longer requires
nasm
Jim Gifford wrote:
I've been working on our cross-lfs build methods quite a bit lately,
but have ran into some dead ends when it comes to the bootloaders for
all the architectures we support. None of them will build properly on
a Pure 64 bit system. The only way I see to get around this is to
I've been working on our cross-lfs build methods quite a bit lately, but
have ran into some dead ends when it comes to the bootloaders for all
the architectures we support. None of them will build properly on a Pure
64 bit system. The only way I see to get around this is to build some 32
bit to
12 matches
Mail list logo
