Proposal: x86_64 pure 64 bit bootloader

Matt Darcy lfs-list at
Mon Nov 7 14:48:20 PST 2005

Ken Moffat wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Joe Ciccone wrote:
>> This goes against any standard I have set for LFS so far but it gets us
>> one step closer to being stable. I want to propose using grub-static for
>> x86_64 pure builds. I am sure someone will say but the purpose of LFS is
>> to compile every package from source. It is against my *religion* to use
>> binary packages but this seems like the best option until somebody comes
>> up with a way to cross-compile grub properly. I have been unsuccessful
>> in all previous attempts. I will provide the package if needed.
>> I am asking for some feedback on this idea. As I said, it seems like the
>> most logical decision right now.
>> -Joe
>  As has been documented, in the eternal bootloader religious wars, I'm 
> on the side of lilo.  But, the LFS community came down in favour of 
> grub on x86 and I respect that choice.  Somehow, I doubt the choice 
> would have even been discussed if it was between a bootloader you 
> could compile, and a binary, which is what is now being suggested for 
> x86_64-64.
> Ken

I've already discussed this with joe,

and while finding a solution is important, I'm not really keen for 

If you want to meet somewhere in the middle for discussion, that could 
be a more short term fix.

in that different arch's need bootloaders eg: your not using grub on 
mips, so mix and match

x86_64 lilo
x86 grub
sparc silo
etc etc

although this solution doesn't solve the sparc issues.

boot food for thought.


More information about the cross-lfs mailing list