On Wednesday 23 November 2005 05:01, Andrew Muraco wrote:
(I've read all of the comments up until now, but my response is not
directed at any particular post.)
Facts: (according to me, and what I've read)
-The releng team DID make a good decision by making stage 3 default in
the
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 10:24 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Most people that complain are probably misinformed about the usefulness of
stages 1 and 2. They are really only useful if you know what you're doing
and don't really need the handbook that much. Those users should be able
to find the
On 11/22/05, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to build servers,
because I can fit a boot image + stage1 tarball on a
On 11/23/05, Mike Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/22/05, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Give me one example of something that you can do with a stage1 or stage2
tarball that you cannot with a stage3 tarball.
I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to build servers,
On 11/23/05, Dan Meltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/23/05, Mike Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may not be the typical user, but I use Stage1 to build servers,
because I can fit a boot image + stage1 tarball on a small usb drive,
boot to that, and then I nfs mount $DISTDIR and $PORTDIR
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 16:14, 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.
It's useful if you have to change compiler or other tool-chain part right from
the start (e.g. use 3.4.* on i386,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:24:55AM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Most people that complain are probably misinformed about the usefulness of
stages 1 and 2. They are really only useful if you know what you're doing
and don't really need the handbook that much. Those users should be able
to
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 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
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
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 users do.
In my years of
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 from the installation documentation. I realize it's
still available if users
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:53 -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
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
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
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
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 all
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
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 anyone
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 less than 10
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 include a
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 from the
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 users
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 it's dumb)
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
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 tarball +
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 to doing
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.
Stage1: Changing
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, perhaps you
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 than 10
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 off
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! Why
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 you are that
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
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
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 much
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.
I DO NOT HAVE
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 tailor
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 much
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
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 that
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 fine with
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 ultimate goal here
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,
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]
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
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 of
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
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 stage3, but
47 matches
Mail list logo
