Scratchbox under 64 bit Linux alternative - maemo.org

Active Topics

Maemo repository (9)
to Community by nokiafemboy - 7 hrs, 43 mins ago
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (18)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 23 hrs, 8 mins ago
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 2 days, 18 hrs ago
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 2 days, 18 hrs ago
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 22 hrs ago
more...

Thread Tools

	tz1	2008-09-28 , 18:00
	Posts: 716 \| Thanked: 236 times \| Joined on Dec 2007	#1

I have dual-boot 32 bit and 64 bit Ubuntu, but usually boot into 64 bit. I am running 64 bit but have scratchbox working (except for kernel compiles which requries a "mmap" program I get permission denied).

First, I have /dev/sda2 as 32 bit Ubuntu, /dev/sda3 as /home, and /dev/sda4 as 64 bit Ubuntu as the default.

/dev/sda2 has scratchbox installed and working and I was using that.

So, booting into 64 bit:

I mount the 32 bit linux as /media/UBUNTU on bootup.

I switch to root (sudo -s).

Then I mount the duplicate proc in the right places using "mount -a -t proc" as root.

After that I "chroot /media/UBUNTU", then run "/etc/init.d/scratchbox-core start"

I do "su myaccount", then "scratchbox" and it works.

apt-get works. So does all the build stuff except the kernel as I've noted (and which I'm working on tracking down).

This is my mtab:

Code:

/dev/sda2 /media/UBUNTU ext3 rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro 0 0

proc            /media/UBUNTU/proc           proc    defaults        0       0
proc            /media/UBUNTU/scratchbox/users/tz/proc           proc    defaults        0       0

Quote & Reply |

	Bundyo	2008-09-28 , 20:14
	Posts: 4,708 \| Thanked: 4,649 times \| Joined on Oct 2007 @ Bulgaria	#2

There's no need for 32bit chroot, scratchbox works ok with the normal 32bit libs installed.

__________________
Technically, there are three determinate states the cat could be in: Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.

Quote & Reply |

	Jaffa	2008-09-29 , 12:00
	Posts: 2,535 \| Thanked: 6,681 times \| Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK	#3

This previous discussion on using ia32-libs, setarch and no chroot may help:

http://www.internettablettalk.com/fo...ad.php?t=22934

__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org

Quote & Reply |

lorelei	2008-09-29 , 12:39
Posts: 479 \| Thanked: 641 times \| Joined on Dec 2007 @ Switzerland	#4

I ended with running scratchbox into a 32-bit virtual machine with VirtualBox ... not exactly ideal, but I like this solution...

Quote & Reply |

	allnameswereout	2008-09-29 , 16:16
	Posts: 3,397 \| Thanked: 1,212 times \| Joined on Jul 2008 @ Netherlands	#5

Originally Posted by lorelei

I ended with running scratchbox into a 32-bit virtual machine with VirtualBox ... not exactly ideal, but I like this solution...

This is what I'm using as well, but VirtualBox doesn't support KVM (not even VBox 2.0.2). On other machines I use libvirt + KVM + frontend (RedHat's open source utilities); these work well. I'm not satisfied with the VBox solution for one because of the overhead, and because I _have_ to unload KVM kmods. I'm going to try Jaffa's solution. A VM does allow one to easily transfer it to an other computer, clone the image, which are advantages. I believe VMware 64 bit does support HVM.

__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!

Quote & Reply |

	tz1	2008-09-30 , 15:16
	Posts: 716 \| Thanked: 236 times \| Joined on Dec 2007	#6

The alternative for installing on 64 bit (at least with the scripts) fails. Even with setarch i386, apt-get update insists on looking for arm64 binaries in binary-arm64 directories and can't find them.

Quote & Reply |

kapitain	2008-10-04 , 14:27
Posts: 1 \| Thanked: 0 times \| Joined on Oct 2008 @ Helsinki	#7

My solution was vmware. I run 32 bit ubuntu hardy on vmware and things work quite smoothly. Finally I have build environment to play with. Started by compiling xbill :-)

Quote & Reply |

	allnameswereout	2008-10-04 , 20:28
	Posts: 3,397 \| Thanked: 1,212 times \| Joined on Jul 2008 @ Netherlands	#8

Originally Posted by tz1

The alternative for installing on 64 bit (at least with the scripts) fails. Even with setarch i386, apt-get update insists on looking for arm64 binaries in binary-arm64 directories and can't find them.

Yes, true. The problem lies not in setarch though. Lets discuss it in the relevant thread... ^^

__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!