On Saturday 28 January 2006 12:39, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > On second thought, never mind :) I am not sure what you are trying to
> > point out here in the first place.
>
> He is trying (quite successfully) to show that you are full of shit.
In this particular case, I might have to agree wit
MIkey wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Using this flags on a freshly compiled stage3 (from a stage1, just running
emerge system without setting useflags) I get no blockers at all, when
setting the useflags at the point that system has been recompiled.
Depclean does suggest removing a number of pac
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Using this flags on a freshly compiled stage3 (from a stage1, just running
> emerge system without setting useflags) I get no blockers at all, when
> setting the useflags at the point that system has been recompiled.
>
> Depclean does suggest removing a number of packages
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Using this flags on a freshly compiled stage3 (from a stage1, just running
> emerge system without setting useflags) I get no blockers at all, when
> setting the useflags at the point that system has been recompiled.
Are you suggesting that on fresh installs, after editing
On Thursday 26 January 2006 18:47, MIkey wrote:
> The stage3 install needs to be ditched for anything other than GRP or
> livecd installs, because face it, that is what it is. It consists of a
> generic system precompiled for desktop use. The toolchain is literally
> years behind most of the oth
On Thursday 26 January 2006 18:30, MIkey wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
> > Maybe you think fixing a circular dep is easy, I know I do. But when
> > Joe Shmoe think it's OMG U63r 1337 to install gentoo using a stage1
> > because it makes his system so awesomely fast ( hence, The Conrad
> > install on
On Thursday 26 January 2006 23:07, MIkey wrote:
> Jan Kundrát wrote:
> > Great, there was a bug. Yeah, there was. Please notice the word "was".
> > It means that it has been fixed and it isn't there anymore. So the
> > problem got fixed. It's over. Finito. Period. Why are you still talking
> > abou
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:08, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:00, MIkey wrote:
> > /var/lib/portage/world should only contain the names of packages you
> > explicitly emerge (without --oneshot). As far as I know an official
> > stage3 tarball should only contain package
26.1.2006, 23:02:28, MIkey wrote:
> You can purge the old gcc immediately after it upgrades instead of after
> the entire system completes.
How the fsck does it matter? What's your obsession here??? So purge it and
stop this finally, you have a freedom to purge it and you have a freedom to
not u
MIkey wrote:
> Because the stage1 method bootstraps gcc/glibc and performs the minimum
> steps needed to complete the subsequent emerge -e system. The dependencies
> on having the old gcc still available are not there because the packages
> have not been built yet. You can purge the old gcc immed
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Great, there was a bug. Yeah, there was. Please notice the word "was".
> It means that it has been fixed and it isn't there anymore. So the
> problem got fixed. It's over. Finito. Period. Why are you still talking
> about it?
Because Becker needed to be informed about it. I
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> MIkey wrote:
A bug, again, that the stage1 installation method was immune to,
>>>
>>>How come? (I'm not familiar with toolchain.eclass at all.)
Because the stage1 method bootstraps gcc/glibc and performs the minimum
steps needed to complete the subsequent emerge -e system
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:00, MIkey wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, MIkey wrote:
> >> Why should system packages (determined by your profile) be present in
> >> the world file on official stage1/3 tarballs?
> >
> > whether they are in the world file itself
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, MIkey wrote:
>> Why should system packages (determined by your profile) be present in the
>> world file on official stage1/3 tarballs?
>
> whether they are in the world file itself doesnt really matter
>
> the "world" target includes all
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> So you complain about a problem that is already fixed as if it still
> exists? I really don't get it.
That particular bug was fixed. Using a stage1/bootstrap approach for a
fresh install is a _method_ of installing gentoo that is immune to that
particular bug because it i
Alec Warner wrote:
> Maybe you think fixing a circular dep is easy, I know I do. But when
> Joe Shmoe think it's OMG U63r 1337 to install gentoo using a stage1
> because it makes his system so awesomely fast ( hence, The Conrad
> install on the forums, heh ;) ) and he has no ing clue how any
16 matches
Mail list logo
