Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wednesday 23 Nov 2005 10:28 am, R Hill wrote: > > For the record, I don't think it matters if stage 1 goes away. Make stage > 3 the Official and Supported Way of installing Gentoo, but provide stage 1 > as a minimal LiveCD/RescueCD option. Make a mention in the install > documentation along th

Re: [gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Curtis Napier wrote: | The contents of the uppermost menu are to sites that are outside the | www.gentoo.org website. They will stay in this location. They are green | to contrast with the purple background to ensure that colorblind and | other visual

[gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Dan Meltzer wrote: > On 11/22/05, R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What about someone on dialup who needs a rescue CD to boot into their system >> after they've trashed the MBR? 88MiB vs 14MiB is a big difference in this >> case. > Erm, why would I need a stage 1 for a rescue cd? christ, i

[gentoo-dev] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

First of all, thank you everyone for all the feedback. Your input is important and greatly appreciated. I should have said that the last update was not complete as far as design was concerned. I was mainly looking for accessibility and rendering issues on as many browsers/OS's as possible. I g

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Marius Mauch wrote: >>If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, along >>with other people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion >>to deal with this? >> >> > >Don't do this without explicitly checking with the maintainer for a >package (if existant). Generally red

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:21:49 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People might also be interested in looking at Aaron's own page > for the design. It seems to be a bit clearer: > > http://www.aaronshi.com/gentoo/ > One thing i notice is that the three bottom menus are only shown on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 11:18, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > Hello everyone, > > A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised > about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. er: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105016 Chris White pgpOqQ5nNV2jW.pgp Des

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:36:01PM -0600, Dale wrote: > R Hill wrote: > Getting a sync past 50% with slowing to a crawl > would be nice. Plenty of people complaining about that. > > Don't beat me to much OK. Be gentle. Really need to release a portage that contains http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferrin

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

Hi, I'm not sure if you noticed this or are even worried about it yet. If you go here: http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org/main/en/morenews.xml then try to click on the link for Status Update , the link is broken. I hope my copy an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

R Hill wrote: I think that a lot of people use stage 1 because they're under the impression that they have to in order to change their CHOST on default-linux from i386-pc-linux-gnu to i686-pc-linux-gnu. And unless something has changed recently, to get an NPTL glibc they _do_ have to make that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

R Hill wrote: >I think that a lot of people use stage 1 because they're under the impression >that they have to in order to change their CHOST on default-linux from >i386-pc-linux-gnu to i686-pc-linux-gnu. And unless something has changed >recently, to get an NPTL glibc they _do_ have to make tha

[gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Andrea Barisani wrote: > At least let's draft a nice > and visible document explaining the change and why people should not use this > anymore since judging from the complaints lots of people just don't get it. I think that a lot of people use stage 1 because they're under the impression that the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On 11/22/05, R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:26 +0100, Marc Hildebrand wrote: > >> Chris Gianelloni wrote: > >> [..] > >>> Now, on the topic of the tarballs. > >>> > >>> Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2

[gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:26 +0100, Marc Hildebrand wrote: >> Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> [..] >>> Now, on the topic of the tarballs. >>> >>> Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 >>> tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. >>> >> An

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Luis F. Araujo wrote: Hello everyone, A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. please adjust your script. >=cat/foo-1.2 is valid even though foo-1.2 is no longer in the tree. I looked at the top 4 line in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:18:26 -0400 "Luis F. Araujo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries, > and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are > still listed in p.m but that don't exist in the tree anymore. > (A bunch of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luis F. Araujo wrote: | So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries, | and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are still | listed in p.m but that don't exist in the tree anymore. | (A bunch of them from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Kurt Lieber wrote: We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all users do. In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've recei

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2005 02:18, Luis F. Araujo wrote: Hello everyone, A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned en

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 02:18, Luis F. Araujo wrote: > Hello everyone, > > A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised > about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. > > So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries, > and it looks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Luis F. Araujo wrote: Hello everyone, A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries, and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds w

[gentoo-dev] Around 425 non-existent packages in p.mask?

Hello everyone, A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries, and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are still listed i

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

Is it possible to have the font from the original Aaron Shi design? George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Re[6]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

No stage 1 or 2? Excellent. People seem to wear Stage 1 like a badge of honour but never seem to realise that the earlier you play around with your system the deeper the mistakes. Why are the instructions for the stage 1 and 2 in the handbook at all? They should be in Gentoo dev space and the only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > You can do whatever you like. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. > > > That being said, you are not going to force *me* to do anything, either. > > Hmm, have I missed an argument here? Actually, the above is incorrect. You > *are* forcing me to use stag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Jakub Moc wrote: *Now* I hope I've finally been sarcastic enough to justify the incredibly pissed-off tone you've shown in your previous reply. I've not exactly seen any flames or name calling here, and I'm not the one to blame for the fact that you're feeling overloaded. Jump back in when you ar

Re[6]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

23.11.2005, 0:26:03, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> However, Gentoo still provides stage1 and stage2 tarballs. This is for >> development purposes (the Release Engineering team starts from a stage1 >> tarball to obtain a stage3) but shouldn't be used by users: a stage3 tarball >> can very well be use

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Corey Shields schrieb: |>| Ahh, ok thanks for clearing that up. |>| |>| Still screwed up. Lesson learned, make friends with a majority |>| of the council, write and propose a glep the day before |>| a meeting and then push it through. wow. sounds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

Marius Mauch wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100 > Ben Skeggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's >>r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out >>that the problem has already been resolved and just

Re: Re[4]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 22:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > 22.11.2005, 21:58:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > >> That FAQ section has nothing in common with the original stage1 docs. > >> Sorry, > >> installing stage3 to remove all the use flags cruft subsequently, bootstrap > >> and re-emerge the syst

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:19:17 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 18 November 2005 18:09, Homer Parker wrote: > > Now that GLEP 41 (AT/HT) has passed, we need to designate a > > subdomain for their email. This will cover AT/HT's as well as forum > > help, so needs to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100 Ben Skeggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's > r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's always fun to find out > that the problem has already been resolved and just hasn't made it to > your loca

Re: [gentoo-dev] Email subdomain

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:09:57 -0800 Corey Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (apologies for the messed up time in my last message) > > On Friday 18 November 2005 06:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > We've seen why this won't work in the past... Too few users know > > how to do proper testing. We

Re: [gentoo-dev] opinion on how to improve the website redesign

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:51:44 +0100 Sven Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A good start could be to do that the quick and ugly way, thanks >> to Google (with some "site:www.gentoo.org/some/thing/" and other >> black magic in the query terms). > [...] > - Google bases its search functionality

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

Jochen Maes wrote: > Hello all, > > > I'd appreciate a nice welcome and a descent slap on the butt when you > pass him... > > Joshua, welcome! > > http://tinyurl.com/n9qb I hope to see this list near hundred soon! Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re[4]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

22.11.2005, 21:58:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote: >> That FAQ section has nothing in common with the original stage1 docs. Sorry, >> installing stage3 to remove all the use flags cruft subsequently, bootstrap >> and re-emerge the system and then ponder which packages are not needed any >> more (again

Re: [gentoo-dev] opinion on how to improve the website redesign

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 06:51:44PM +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:53:22AM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > > A good start could be to do that the quick and ugly way, thanks to > > Google (with some "site:www.gentoo.org/some/thing/" and other black > > magic in

Re: [gentoo-dev] status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:38:46PM +0300, Alexey Chumakov wrote: > 3. It is, imho, great moment to implement some i18n together with site > redesign. Many of us, i18n teams, have to 'clone' and maintain extensive > community sites just to bypass artificial English-only w.g.o front page > limitation

Re: [gentoo-dev] opinion on how to improve the website redesign

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:53:22AM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > A good start could be to do that the quick and ugly way, thanks to > Google (with some "site:www.gentoo.org/some/thing/" and other black > magic in the query terms). [...] Two major obstacles are - Google bases its sea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:42 -0500, Alec Joseph Warner wrote: > I'd point out that this was not well executed as a major change should > have been. We talked of major package changes, apache config changes, > of package breakage. Then one day you up and remove what some consider > a vital part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 23:28 +0300, Alexey Chumakov wrote: > Before I insert my own word -- could somebody tell me, how and by whom > was the initial decision to eliminate the stage1 from mainstream made? As I said before, it was made by and requested by me, after discussion with Release Engineerin

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:16 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > 22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > The idea was to move out the stage1/stage2 docs to somewhere else. Then > > create some sort of "Advanced Installation Topics" guide or something, to > > list out the replacement procedures f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 05:56:52PM +0100, Benjamin Judas wrote: > Also, why a GLEP for that? A GLEP for removing something from the > handbook? Wow! Bureaucracy-wise Gentoo seems to get more and more > european. You mean more and more American? ;) ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Jakub Moc wrote: 22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote: The idea was to move out the stage1/stage2 docs to somewhere else. Then create some sort of "Advanced Installation Topics" guide or something, to list out the replacement procedures for customizing a system from a stage3 tarball

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Jakub Moc пишет: >22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > >>Really, everybody is just up in arms over a knee-jerk reaction to not >>reading carefully. What it boils down to is either not knowing the >>facts, or trolling/flaming. >> >> > >Why exactly is evaporating stage1 an ulti

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

22.11.2005, 20:57:15, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > The idea was to move out the stage1/stage2 docs to somewhere else. Then > create some sort of "Advanced Installation Topics" guide or something, to > list out the replacement procedures for customizing a system from a stage3 > tarball, then, eventu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:28 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > The point is that following the proper steps, one *can* get the exact > > same output. This would include using --newuse and cleaning out unused > > packages, along with any other maintenance items that would be required. > > That's fin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:04 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > In any event, I don't mind the handbook changes, although I'd perhaps > like to see the FAQ for starting from a stage 1 fleshed out a tad, such > as including a paragraph of why one might not want to do that. Perhaps > steal from whomever

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 01:06:03PM CST] > Who said that removing something isn't a part of the procedure to get an > identical build? Yeah, my phrasing was lousy (which I noted in another e-mail, but I doubt you had time to see it before replying to this one). > > The point is t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Wednesday 23 Nov 2005 12:29 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > As I stated before, you're more than able to take a stage3 tarball + > catalyst + the example catalyst spec files and build your own stage1 > tarball. In fact, this is the exact same procedure that Release > Engineering uses in buildin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:33:04AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Just because you downloaded them previously does not mean you didn't > download them. Yes, but i already have them and don't need to download them any more in this scenario. > > Btw, if i use stage 3 and then emerge -e world to re

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 12:03 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 09:15:27AM CST] > > > Well, if we could educate the users that stage2 tarballs are totally > > > pointless, and that running bootstrap.sh followed by emerge -e system > > > from a stage3 is pretty

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 12:17:47PM CST] > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:03:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1 > | and a stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to > | dramatically

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:22:42PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > Personally I'd just kill auto-use support in the next "big" portage > upgrade (and USE_ORDER with it as disabling auto-use is the only > real application of it that I'm aware of). works for me -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing l

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 23:10 +0530, Abhay Kedia wrote: > On Tuesday 22 Nov 2005 10:09 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > *sigh* > > > > Another "Gentoo is about choice" argument. Can I ask you something? > > Where does it say that Gentoo is about choice? I see lots of places > > that say that Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tuesday 22 Nov 2005 11:32 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > Ok, fine. Gentoo is about choice. So what about developers? Don't we > also have a choice? Sometimes we have to choose what is best for > ourselves (note, I'm not talking about anything selfish or malicious > here). Sometimes we have

Re: [gentoo-dev] opinion on how to improve the website redesign

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:04:53 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > or you could make it the dropdown list so people can pick > bugs.gentoo.org/gentoo.org/forums.gentoo.org/whatever Exactly, that's what i would like too. More specificaly, it could be something like this: http://tdegre

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jakub Moc schrieb: | 22.11.2005, 19:13:36, Danny van Dyk wrote: | | |>Thomas Kirchner schrieb: | I'm against this change, personally. Stage1 has |>*always* been for | advanced users. If someone screws up their own system |>(which is possible | in any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 11:15 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > > > >>>As I am now not only the Release Engineering lead, but also the x86 > >>>Release Coordinator, I am fielding nearly 100% of these issues. > >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 12:03 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 09:15:27AM CST] > > > Well, if we could educate the users that stage2 tarballs are totally > > > pointless, and that running bootstrap.sh followed by emerge -e system > > > from a stage3 is pretty

Re: [gentoo-dev] punting the use.defaults feature

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:06:38 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:23:19 +0100 > "Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 11:55 -0800, Michael Marineau wrote: > > > > > For users who do like the functionality jus

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

22.11.2005, 19:13:36, Danny van Dyk wrote: > Thomas Kirchner schrieb: | I'm against this change, personally. Stage1 has > *always* been for | advanced users. If someone screws up their own system > (which is possible | in any number of other ways, as well) then it's their > fault. Gentoo | isn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:03:49 -0600 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1 | and a stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to | dramatically tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so | from a st

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

22.11.2005, 19:03:49, Grant Goodyear wrote: > I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1 and a > stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to dramatically > tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so from a stage 1 or 2, > but would have to r

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 18:59 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > 22.11.2005, 18:51:12, Simon Stelling wrote: > > > Harald van D?k wrote: > >> (Note that I'm not going to argue either way whether this is a good > >> thing; I'm merely pointing out that the docs do say we're about choice.) > > > You still can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Kirchner schrieb: | I'm against this change, personally. Stage1 has *always* been for | advanced users. If someone screws up their own system (which is possible | in any number of other ways, as well) then it's their fault. Gentoo | isn't ab

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:47:45 + Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most | complaints about this decision than any other single decision. How many of those complaints were from users who understood the issues involved, and how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 09:15:27AM CST] > > Well, if we could educate the users that stage2 tarballs are totally > > pointless, and that running bootstrap.sh followed by emerge -e system > > from a stage3 is pretty much *exactly* the same as starting a stage1 > > from scratch..

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

The last link should settle it for you? Can we now comfortably say that "Gentoo is about choice"? The other 652,998 links might reveal a few more places where we can get the choice idea from but I hope that all these links should be sufficient to give anyone this idea. Ok, fine. Gentoo is ab

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

22.11.2005, 18:51:12, Simon Stelling wrote: > Harald van D?k wrote: >> (Note that I'm not going to argue either way whether this is a good >> thing; I'm merely pointing out that the docs do say we're about choice.) > You still can choose between stage3 and stage3+GRP without having to do > anyt

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: status of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org

Paul de Vrieze posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:20:28 +0100: > On Monday 21 November 2005 12:04, Duncan wrote: >> * Set the base tag. I sometimes save web pages for my own use, and >> like them to work when I do. Adding a tag would be >> very useful, here. Wi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Harald van Dijk wrote: (Note that I'm not going to argue either way whether this is a good thing; I'm merely pointing out that the docs do say we're about choice.) You still can choose between stage3 and stage3+GRP without having to do anything but following the handbook :) -- Simon Stelling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tuesday 22 Nov 2005 10:09 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > *sigh* > > Another "Gentoo is about choice" argument. Can I ask you something? > Where does it say that Gentoo is about choice? I see lots of places > that say that Gentoo allows you to customize, but nowhere do I see > anything that says

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

22.11.2005, 17:30:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > Also, the problem is not so much needing manpower for testing as far as > Release Engineering is concerned. It is instead having some method in > place where devs actually perform QA on

[gentoo-dev] Re: opinion on how to improve the website redesign

Mike Frysinger posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:03:31 +: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:09:44AM -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: >> >> They would need to coordinate with infra on how they would like to >> implement a search function. For now, I think its best if

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > >>>As I am now not only the Release Engineering lead, but also the x86 >>>Release Coordinator, I am fielding nearly 100% of these issues. >>> >>>I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DO OTHER PEOPLE'S QA FOR THEM. >> >>If yo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 11:39:29AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Another "Gentoo is about choice" argument. Can I ask you something? > Where does it say that Gentoo is about choice? I see lots of places > that say that Gentoo allows you to customize, but nowhere do I see > anything that says t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

And again, we have the same situation that lead to my resignation: People who have absolutely no clue of how releng works scream. Not about "BAD QA!!!11" this time, but about a decision that was made to make work easier. What is wrong with you, guys? You all have so good and enlightening ideas! Wh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 11:25 -0500, solar wrote: > > Removing the stage1 and stage2 instructions from the Handbook has > > already reduced the number of errors being reported by new users to me. > I hope that you can arrange for either the stage1 install instructions > to be put back in or split of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 11:19 -0500, Thomas Kirchner wrote: > * On Nov 22 10:15, Chris Gianelloni (gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org) wrote: > > It isn't pretty much anymore. It *is* exactly the same. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're going to attempt to get the same > result as a stage1 with a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:15 +0100, Wernfried Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:48:06AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > > > > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. > > > > Answer: Download it in less t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:54 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote: > > As I am now not only the Release Engineering lead, but also the x86 > > Release Coordinator, I am fielding nearly 100% of these issues. > > > > I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DO OTHER PEOPLE'S QA FOR THEM. > > If you are that overworked, pe

Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X porting: dependency changes

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 00:46, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Doug Goldstein wrote: > > I thought GLEP 37 was a way out kind of thing. Like several months if > > not a year before it can be done. > > I figured about the same, but > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112896#c16 begs to differ.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:58 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:29 -0500, solar wrote: > > > Now, on the topic of the tarballs. > > > > > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > > > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. > > > > S

[gentoo-dev] Re: Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

* On Nov 22 10:15, Chris Gianelloni (gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org) wrote: > It isn't pretty much anymore. It *is* exactly the same. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're going to attempt to get the same result as a stage1 with a stage3 - (which won't be exactly the same, given the defaults of s

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Andrew Gaffney wrote: > Lance Albertson wrote: > >> If you are that overworked, perhaps you should find more people to help >> with releng and the duties you have? I've been in a similar position as >> yourself where its hard to find good quality folks that stick around, >> and then you get used t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:48:06AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > > > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. > > Answer: Download it in less than 10 minutes. > I'd love to see you do the same with a stage1 ta

Re: [gentoo-dev] new developer Joshua Nichols (nichoj)

Jochen Maes wrote: Joshua, welcome! Another!? Confusion! Pandemonium! -- Joshua Baergen -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Lance Albertson wrote: If you are that overworked, perhaps you should find more people to help with releng and the duties you have? I've been in a similar position as yourself where its hard to find good quality folks that stick around, and then you get used to doing everything yourself. I haven'

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:29 -0500, solar wrote: > > Now, on the topic of the tarballs. > > > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. > > Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh > (well you can do it but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 14:47 +, Kurt Lieber wrote: > >>We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to >>remove stage 1 and 2 from the installation documentation. I realize it's >>still available if users are willing to dig for it, but not all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:14:04AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 15:37 +0100, Andrea Barisani wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 02:47:45PM +, Kurt Lieber wrote: > > > We have received *numerous* complaints from users about the decision to > > > remove stage 1 and 2 fro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:26 +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > Personally, I would like to see stage1 and stage2 go away completely. > > They serve no real purpose anymore after the changes we have made to the > > stages to inc

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:26 +0100, Marc Hildebrand wrote: > Chris Gianelloni wrote: > [..] > > Now, on the topic of the tarballs. > > > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. > > > > Answer: Download it in les

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:38:34AM -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote: > >I don't care what you do with the docs, but the stages 1, 3 need to > >stay. stage2 has always been a bonus stage more or less added into the > >mix cuz it's a byproduct of stage building (pre catalyst days). > > I don't think

Re: [gentoo-dev] Modular X porting: dependency changes

Doug Goldstein wrote: I thought GLEP 37 was a way out kind of thing. Like several months if not a year before it can be done. I figured about the same, but https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112896#c16 begs to differ. Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh (well you can do it but it's dumb) You can do the same from a stage3. Stage3: has full cxx/berkdb/ssl/pam/libwrap and all the cruft pulled in from having use flags enabled thats not easy to get rid of otherwise. Fair point, however this is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

> Now, on the topic of the tarballs. > > Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 > tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh (well you can do it but it's dumb) Stage3: has full cxx/berkdb/ssl/pam/libwrap and a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:10:14AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Personally, I would like to see stage1 and stage2 go away completely. > They serve no real purpose anymore after the changes we have made to the > stages to include a complete /var/db before 2005.0's release. They take > longer to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [..] Now, on the topic of the tarballs. Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2 tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball. Answer: Download it in less than 10 minutes. The question of interest is: Will we keep changing things with

  1   2   >