On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:13:45AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > For stage1 and stage2 the *order* we build packages is relevant.
Is this really true? The stage1 is being built with ROOT, so it's only using the seed stage3 packages. It's hard to have cyclic dependencies when you're using packages from one root (the seed stage3) but installing into another (/tmp/stage1root). Looking through a stage1 log I see: emerge --quiet --oneshot --nodeps --update sys-apps/portage … emerge --quiet --update --deep --newuse --complete-graph --rebuild-if-new-ver gcc … emerge --quiet --usepkg --buildpkg --newuse --oneshot --nodeps sys-apps/baselayout … emerge --quiet --usepkg --buildpkg --newuse --oneshot sys-devel/gnuconfig sys-devel/bison … The first two are just covering us against serious missmatches between the package tree and the seed stage3 (and are installed with ROOT=/). I expect we could handle shoving baselayout into the final emerge along with the other packages.build stuff. The logs for stage2 aren't as clear, but looking through the script I only see: * A Portage-updating emerge * The main GCC, binutils, … emerge * A possible 'emerge --prune sys-devel/gcc' I'm not sure this is needed at all. I'll try and find time to build a stage3 directly from a stage1, and we'll see if it blows up ;). Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
