Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we should really rename "build" to "stage1", "bootstrap" to "stage2", and
> then have catalyst add USE="stage3" during the stage3 step ... that would
> allow packages to automatically key off of the environment
That sounds clean too. You could use "install" to make the tran
On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 08:01 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > I've already stated my preference for not doing *anything* outside of
> > merging packages in the stages.
> With respect, this is a little confusing. I didn't get past the learning
> curve for catalyst, but it's clearly not the same as simply
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:45 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> the compromise is simple: catalyst runs --config at the end of stage3 for
>> appropriate packages, but as to what those things actually do is left in
>> the ebuilds.
>
> I've already stated my preference for not
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 04:23 +, Duncan wrote:
> Just to point out... I've seen people mention overlaying a stage-3 on an
> existing installation for recovery reasons, generally broken gcc or (on
> amd64) switching back to multilib from 64-bit only profiles, so it
> /cannot/ be rightly assumed
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 21 Sep
2007 03:16:49 -0400:
> On Friday 21 September 2007, Duncan wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 20 Sep
>>
>> 2007 12:34:41 -0400:
>> > we kno
On Friday 21 September 2007, Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 20 Sep
>
> 2007 12:34:41 -0400:
> > we know that someone taking a stage3 has never configured anything
> > before and so we can safely put defaults into /root/.
>
>
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 20 Sep
2007 12:34:41 -0400:
> we know that someone taking a stage3 has never configured anything
> before and so we can safely put defaults into /root/.
Just to point out... I've seen people mention overlaying
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu,
20 Sep 2007 09:19:31 -0700:
> While I would normally agree, there's nothing wrong with having sensible
> defaults. After all, we install a bunch of stuff into /home/$user
> thanks to /etc/skel, so how is this
"John R. Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:18:46 -0400:
> But, hasn't anyone realized that bash is _broken_ if this file doesn't
> exist? Quoting from the upstream-provided man page, "When an
> interactive shell that is not a login shel
