LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   slackware64 and grub legacy (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware64-and-grub-legacy-4175423313/)

perbh 08-21-2012 06:51 PM

slackware64 and grub legacy
 
Why is grub (legacy) not included in the slackware64-version?
Checking the source-code for '/slackware-current/extra/source/grub - there is a patch for x86_64 and also x86_64 is supported in the slackbuild - even a patch for ext4 if you are so inclined.
Yes - I most certainly will try to compile/link it - just surprised why it's not there ...

I just happen to think that grub (legacy) is the best thing since sliced bread (sorry all ya lilo-fans) - grub2 you can keep in the trash - it's an OS looking for a decent bootloader! - imnsho.

volkerdi 08-21-2012 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perbh (Post 4760541)
Why is grub (legacy) not included in the slackware64-version?
Checking the source-code for '/slackware-current/extra/source/grub - there is a patch for x86_64 and also x86_64 is supported in the slackbuild - even a patch for ext4 if you are so inclined.
Yes - I most certainly will try to compile/link it - just surprised why it's not there ...

I just happen to think that grub (legacy) is the best thing since sliced bread (sorry all ya lilo-fans) - grub2 you can keep in the trash - it's an OS looking for a decent bootloader! - imnsho.

The patch is to allow grub to boot an x86_64 kernel, and the $ARCH detection in the SlackBuild is just the usual boilerplate. Unless there are some more patches that I don't know about, grub1 doesn't compile on x86_64.

perbh 08-21-2012 07:07 PM

ahhh - so that's the 'raisin in the pudding' ... oh well, I'll give it a try and see if I can get the sucker to compile. I know archlinux has a x86_64-version of grub but I haven't dug properly into it yet (possible patches etc). I'll let yall know what happens ...

[edit]
oooops - the arch-version uses multilib *sigh* - so _not_ a true 64-bit version - dammit!

[yae] (yet another edit)
just thinking out loud, but ... obviously (at least to me) it has to be statically linked (it's a bootloader!!), which _should_ mean I can beg/steal/borrow the arch-version - he, he, he. (running off to try said possibility)

[yaee]
fyi - the patchset seems to be somewhat different, but that could be just packaging ... anyway - here it is:

just040_all_grub-0.96-nxstack.patch
05-grub-0.97-initrdaddr.diff
automake-pkglib.patch
ext4.patch
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/grub/grub-0.97.tar.gz
grub-0.97-ldflags-objcopy-remove-build-id.patch
grub-inode-size.patch
i2o.patch
install-grub
intelmac.patch
menu.lst
more-raid.patch
special-devices.patch

Richard Cranium 08-21-2012 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perbh (Post 4760541)
it's an OS looking for a decent bootloader! - imnsho.

That would have been OpenBoot (use Forth as a bootloader!).

perbh 08-21-2012 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Cranium (Post 4760591)
That would have been OpenBoot (use Forth as a bootloader!).

*chuckles* I was more leaning towards lisp myself ... or even a pair of Dan Post boots?? ;-)

Skaperen 08-22-2012 10:04 AM

I built both 64-bit and 32-bit systems, and squirreled the 32-bit into a chroot tree. I can compile 32-bit code in there, then verify it won't run outside that chroot so I know it's 32-bit. That kind of setup I would expect to compile grub1 OK.

vharishankar 08-22-2012 10:13 AM

deleted.

Skaperen 08-22-2012 12:47 PM

I used to have a server booting via grub1. It was all 32-bit. Now days I use syslinux and I doubt if the old config is easy to find.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.