On 14 Oct 2011, at 13:57, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
A part of installing a package (in a chroot) might be to run binaries (found in the
chroot). It might be possible to fix it up by running 32 bit binaries somehow, but I doubt
that is feasible.
I've not looked at the code, but my sense is that I'm not
being clear. If one of the binaries to run to generate the files that go into the iso,
were, say gcc, then the inputs for gcc on 32bit and 64 bit are the same, as are the
outputs. I could even write the C code so that it ran on either h/w architecture (or ARM,
>> You can use "setarch i686" on x86_64 to build 32 bit images - not the
other way around.
> That's great. But not much use to me. Clearly, it's not a capability
that's going to come soon. At least I know where I stand.
"come soon"? 64 bit binaries requires a 64 bit kernel which requires a 64 bit
cpu (or an emulator running on 32 bit). You can do that now if you really want to. With 32
bit being so "last century" I doubt there will ever by any changes in this
For me, the issue is that I've got a 32 bit machine that I want to build
binaries on and which I don't want to take out of action while I move it to 64bit.
More generally, I don't see why I'd not want to use livecd-creator on intel
architecture to create a boot iso for any arbitrary target (eg a phone, based on ARM).
Surely it makes no sense to have to have an ARM box to build an ARM livecd any more than I
need a 64 bit intel machine to produce a 64 bit intel binary.