Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

2006-01-26 Thread Pete Ezzo
On 1/26/06, MIkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> I'm not asking for support, I'm giving it.

are you still freaking writing?  you have proven yourself ignorant in
at least a dozen emails so far.  you don't understand portage.  you
don't understand system.  you don't understand how to read.  and you
certainly won't go away.

my official user opinion is that you should unsubscribe from this list
and go outside.  i'm a user, my opinion counts as much as yours right?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] i have an idea ! (erescue)

2005-05-16 Thread Pete Ezzo
On 5/16/05, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This would add quite a bit of space to the mirrors.  The average stage3
> tarball is about 100MB.  So you can assume that the packages would equal
> about the same.  Multiply this by the number of releasing arches, and
> possibly even subarches, and you have an additional 1GB just from
> x86/ppc.

i don't believe this was meant to be a full replace anything that
breaks kind of system here.  just a simple rescue program that would
get you very basic stuff, like portage, python, the toolchain.  for
any arch they could be optimized to the lowest common denominator,
like i386... and then once they are installed and the user's system
works again, they use the again working portage or compiler to rebuild
the exact version they want.  it isn't a huge substantial hit, and the
rescue packages don't have to be the latest version in question, they
can be updated once a release, or once a year, leaving a fairly small
footprint.

i also like the idea of it being wholly seperate from portage, which
neatly eliminates several points of failure, and keeps the portage
code a bit easier to control.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list