Proposal: x86_64 pure 64 bit bootloader
lfs-list at projecthugo.co.uk
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.
> 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
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
although this solution doesn't solve the sparc issues.
boot food for thought.
More information about the cross-lfs