Is anybody able to compile Grub 1 on 14.1?

The package from 14.0 /extra seems to work fine, but I am unable to compile Grub 1 under 14.1. I get a failure in asm.S.

Just curious.

Thanks.

P.S. Yes, I know 14.1 comes with Grub 2 and Lilo.

Grub-legacy may require patches to build on current systems, but you may have to scour other distributions for them.

I have been looking. I was hoping to find a distro still using Grub 1, to find the sources and patches, but no luck yet.

Gentoo has grub-legacy, you might want to take a look at it.

I think PCLinuxOS uses it as well...

Gentoo might as well. They hang onto a lot of old packages.

PCLinuxOS does as does CentOS.

You should find grub (0.97) under slackware-14.0 and 'extra'
Otherwise, I have got it as a slackware package - I'll mail it to you ...
Note that grub-0.97 is _only_ 32-bit - to my (meagre) knowledge, nobody has successfully managed to compile it using 64-bit :-(

That being said - I'm a big fan of grub-legacy - use it all the time as my 'master-boot', then whenever I install a distro, I put its bootloader on the root filesystem and just chainload to it.
IMHO - the downfall of grub2 is that its trying to be all-encompassing. If you want to remove the one distro whose grub2 is on the MBR - then you need to install another one there ...
'ts true what they say - grub2 is an OS looking for a decent bootloader! ;-)

As I type and show my ignorance of grub (and other topics) ...

As a boot loader it shouldn't matter it it's 32 or 64 bit. It's independent of the OS to be installed, correct?

Perhaps it would matter if one only had a 64 bit resources available to build grub.

Would there be an advantage to having grub compiled as 64 bit?

You were probably just making an observation, but it made me wonder. Just asking.

I found an srpm from PCLOS. Contains a buttload of patches, far more than Slackware.

Uh, yeah, I know, I mentioned that in my original post. That is where I got the sources to compile.

Yeah, I know. I am using 32-bit 14.1 to compile. My SWAG is gcc gets stricter with each release and that now causes the build failure.

Operationally, Grub 1 is system agnostic. Just doesn't compile on 64-bit. I am guessing because part of the code is assembler.

Absolutely correct - you can easily boot a 64-bit distro. I mentioned the fact cuz Woodsman had trouble compiling it - so I just wondered if he was trying a 64-bit compile ...
That has always been my understanding as well ...

Not if it needs to boot a non-supported filesystem. The change to 256 byte inodes for ext4 (and later ext3) exposed that. Or btrfs.
What about gpt formatted disks ?.

These are but a couple of the reasons grub legacy was abandoned. If you choose to pursue non-supported software, you have to expect dramas.

Uh, no, I expect to poke around the web looking for help and solutions. Oh, wait, I am doing just that in this thread.

I think I wouldn't hesitate to use the pclinuxos sources including all the patches. You could also use sources from fedora -even if a couple of years old. LFS or gentoo probably use less patches, if you prefer.
I'm still using grub-legacy -a version whose patches I have picked and chosen over the years.

LFS switched to Grub-2.x a while ago, but the patches for legacy are still available and should allow for a compile in a 64-bit environment:

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/grub/

That should help, but if it conflicts with glibc or GCC you might be stuck.