Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 instructions. -The releng team _DID_NOT_ do a sufficient job of making the community aware of the changes BEFORE they occurred (I didn't know about this change until after it was done, and Gentoo.org is my home page, I read the GWN) -Stage 1 2 tar balls and instructions ARE available OPINION: - This change should be GLEP'd, as it effects everyone that installs Gentoo (to some degree, most do not suffer tho) - Stage 1 SHOULD continue to be released and maintained, instructions clearly stating risks and LACK of SUPPORT and easily visibility from the install docs (which it seems it does not have (according to posts), although, It is perfectly clear to me.) This whole issue has been discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] before. While not quite as noisy as dev, everyone had their say. It is clear to me that the decision is right the way it was made. A GLEP wasn't necessary as it was discussed and approved by all involved (on the releng list). 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 alternative installation docs. I do agree however that there should be some link to the relevant documentation from the handbook. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpsNPvsBu78N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 alternative installation docs. I do agree however that there should be some link to the relevant documentation from the handbook. There is a link. It was in since the docs were moved. Also, I plan on working with the documentation team to come up with an Advanced Installation Topics type guide that will not only give information on the lower stages, but also how to make a stage1 install from a stage3 tarball. It will likely also cover things like Hardened, provided they want it that way. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 small usb drive, boot to that, and then I nfs mount $DISTDIR and $PORTDIR from a central server. Mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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, 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 from a central server. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the boot image itself have nfs built in? why a stage1 at all... Mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 from a central server. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the boot image itself have nfs built in? why a stage1 at all... Because I'm lazy, and used to doing the stage1 thing :) Mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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, where 3.3.* is default) on PentiumM in order to use -march=pentium-m. It's certainly possible to start with stage 3, but makes total process last longer (Much more to recompile) and is more error-prone. Example of this risk: When installing GCC3.4 one may forget to install old libstdc++ (it has to be unmasked, and depending on use-flags it me not yes be reauested by portage!) and have a missing linking dependency on libstdc++ in python (no more portage to recompile python!) once GCC3.3 is unmerged. For some server-setups it may also be useful to start from a very minimal base in order to avoid hidden dependencies caused by unconditionnal operations of configure which add unwanted dependencies (e.g. USE-flags disables dep, but configure script still uses it, be it directly or indirectly) Sure you can depclean afterwards to removed unneeded packages, but as a precaution a emerge -e world would need to be done (loss of time). It's fine to make stage1/stage2 non-recommended as they bring no advantage over stage3 for most desktop systems, but should stay available and documented for minority who has valid use of it. Bruno -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 find the alternative installation docs. I do agree however that there should be some link to the relevant documentation from the handbook. Actually the migration process did all that in one step: - Update the Handbook . Remove stage1/2 instructions . Add a /couple/ of references to the Gentoo FAQ - Update the Gentoo FAQ - Update the Gentoo Handbook FAQ Perhaps I should use the blink.../blink tags more often. Wkr, Sven Vermeulen -- Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp Gentoo Council Member The Gentoo Projecthttp://www.gentoo.org pgpQD9X7xowdh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation, perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, for advanced users only or use at your own risk? --kurt I perfectly agree with this request, we should provide the choice and clear point that out (along with all the correlated risks) instead of simply hiding the option. And I sincerely hope there's no intention to remove stage1/stage2 tarballs in the future because that would be a really a bad thing imho. Cheers -- Andrea Barisani [EMAIL PROTECTED].*. Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer V ( ) PGP-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc ( ) 0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E^^_^^ Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 received the most complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation, perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, for advanced users only or use at your own risk? 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... To me, the email from that user sounds like the typical vocal minority of users who make screw common sense in favor of choice complaints whenever we change something for the better. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation, perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, for advanced users only or use at your own risk? The problem is that we (releng) cannot possibly keep up with the number of possible bugs that are being introduced via USE flags. It used to be that if someone introduced a USE flag into *any* package that would show up under system that they would make sure the damn thing would pass a stage1-stage3 process. Now, we're receiving bugs and emails quite often from problems where things like hal are being pulled in to system, which is a major problem, as it requires a configured kernel, which, of course, doesn't exist at this point. 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. Because of this, *I* requested to have the instructions removed. They were causing more problems than they are worth, and since *not a single person* stepped up when I asked for help after beejay left, I'm just going to do what I need to do with the things that I maintain. If this means requesting Handbook changes to reduce my workload, I have and will continue this trend. 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 use for installation, and give you exactly 0 advantages over a stage3 that cannot be done with a stage3 tarball itself. I would have no problem with us documenting these more advanced methods somewhere, but I would have a definite problem with resurrecting the obsolete materials just because a few users that are ignorant to the actual issues are flaming and otherwise provoking [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this. Besides, there's *nothing* stopping a user from continuing to use a stage1 tarball. There's *nothing* stopping a user from taking a stage3 tarball, the example catalyst specs, and building their own stage1 tarball. We aren't taking away their freedom in any way. However, anything that we release, we *are* expected to do QA on and make sure it works, along with resolving bugs. Almost all of these bugs are user-created due to their lack of knowledge of USE flags, Gentoo in general, and the bootstrap process. We cannot expect every user that might think about using a stage1 tarball to know this. That means they'll be filing bugs. I'll be getting them. I came up with a resolution for these bugs and enacted it. While it will not prevent the problem 100%, it will reduce my workload greatly. I truly do appreciate and adore our users, but if a few people are going to get pissed off and leave over this. Fine. Let them. They're probably not the kind of people we want associated with us anyway. - Forwarded message from Varun Dhussa [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:50:07 +0530 From: Varun Dhussa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Complaint Hello, Gentoo claims to be giving freedom. However, I was dissapointed to see that the stage 1 had been removed from gentoo 2005. Infact, even the handbook makes no refference of it. This takes Gentoo another step closer to other distros like Ubuntu. A dissapointed user, Varun Dhussa India - End forwarded message - -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 are willing to dig for it, but not all users do. In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation, perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, for advanced users only or use at your own risk? --kurt I perfectly agree with this request, we should provide the choice and clear point that out (along with all the correlated risks) instead of simply hiding the option. And I sincerely hope there's no intention to remove stage1/stage2 tarballs in the future because that would be a really a bad thing imho. The problem with listing risks and such is the users aren't listening. They are ignoring our warnings and breaking their own systems, then filing bugs. The problem is that these are *not* bugs, but issues with incompatibility. It is impossible to install something that requires a configured kernel before you have a configured kernel. 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. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation
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 users do. In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation, perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, for advanced users only or use at your own risk? 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... It isn't pretty much anymore. It *is* exactly the same. To me, the email from that user sounds like the typical vocal minority of users who make screw common sense in favor of choice complaints whenever we change something for the better. Exactly. It sounds like we are letting ourselves be swayed by a few heated words from someone who is obviously shooting for a reaction. If we give in, the terrorists have won. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 without a GLEP that should *never* be touched without one? Cheers, Marc. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 use for installation, and give you exactly 0 advantages over a stage3 that cannot be done with a stage3 tarball itself. Perhaps we should just document these facts better? Write a news item explaining the reasons behind removing stage1/2 instructions from our handbooks - and explain _why_ stage1 and 2 are not really better than a stage3 install + bootstrap.sh + emerge -e world. Perhaps also add a small note about this to the handbook. If our users are explained why stage1/2 installs don't give any benefits over a stage3 install, I trust them to aknowledge this fact. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgp6ADSEHZAFH.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 all the cruft pulled in from having use flags enabled thats not easy to get rid of otherwise. 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). -- solar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux -- 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 kind of stuff that most users want anyway. I see the embedded angle you are taking with this argument, and I would counter by saying that folks who are interested in some sort of embedded uclibc type userland probably know what they are doing in the first place. 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 has implied that we're not going to distribute stage1 anymore. They are still useful for folks that know what they are doing. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 anyone has implied that we're not going to distribute stage1 anymore. They are still useful for folks that know what they are doing. i was under the impression we were merely changing our docs and that we were going to continue to mirror stage1 and stage2 files this i am OK with -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 less than 10 minutes. I'd love to see you do the same with a stage1 tarball + all the distfiles you'll need to go from stage1 to stage3. In case you're wondering, it's more than the size of a stage3 tarball, by quite a bit. The question of interest is: Will we keep changing things without a GLEP that should *never* be touched without one? Since when is this GLEP material? -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 include a complete /var/db before 2005.0's release. They take longer to use for installation, and give you exactly 0 advantages over a stage3 that cannot be done with a stage3 tarball itself. Perhaps we should just document these facts better? Write a news item explaining the reasons behind removing stage1/2 instructions from our handbooks - and explain _why_ stage1 and 2 are not really better than a stage3 install + bootstrap.sh + emerge -e world. Perhaps also add a small note about this to the handbook. Well, the information was in the bug linked with the GWN article, along with also in the gentoo-docs mailing list archive that was posted. If our users are explained why stage1/2 installs don't give any benefits over a stage3 install, I trust them to aknowledge this fact. Your faith is much stronger than mine. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 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 received the most complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation, perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, for advanced users only or use at your own risk? --kurt I perfectly agree with this request, we should provide the choice and clear point that out (along with all the correlated risks) instead of simply hiding the option. And I sincerely hope there's no intention to remove stage1/stage2 tarballs in the future because that would be a really a bad thing imho. The problem with listing risks and such is the users aren't listening. They are ignoring our warnings and breaking their own systems, then filing bugs. The problem is that these are *not* bugs, but issues with incompatibility. It is impossible to install something that requires a configured kernel before you have a configured kernel. I still think that pointing things with a *huge* warning shouldn't be a problem...otherwise we would always end up hiding things prone to user error because we think that users are listening. 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. 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. Oh well nothing. I don't doubt that userwise they are not needed...but there might be other needs developerwise where the two stages are useful. So fair enough, remove it from the docs...but at least let's explain why we are doing this since complaints are there (legit or not). -- Andrea Barisani [EMAIL PROTECTED].*. Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer V ( ) PGP-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc ( ) 0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E^^_^^ Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 users do. In my years of monitoring [EMAIL PROTECTED], we've received the most complaints about this decision than any other single decision. Is there a way we can re-introduce the stages into the installation documentation, perhaps with gigantic warnings saying, for advanced users only or use at your own risk? The problem is that we (releng) cannot possibly keep up with the number of possible bugs that are being introduced via USE flags. It used to be that if someone introduced a USE flag into *any* package that would show up under system that they would make sure the damn thing would pass a stage1-stage3 process. Now, we're receiving bugs and emails quite often from problems where things like hal are being pulled in to system, which is a major problem, as it requires a configured kernel, which, of course, doesn't exist at this point. 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 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't seen any emails asking for help or people for releng. This is the first I've heard of your troubles with not having adequate time for all the duties you do yourself. If you need help, please ask for it and at least try and get some of that load off of you so that we don't take things out of gentoo simply because of the lack of time. Cheers- -- Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 it's dumb) Right. You can do it. 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. You can accomplish this, too. Maybe we could even use that nice little scripts directory in the portage tree to write a script to assist in performing this. I'm sure it would be less error-prone than what we have now with the broken QA procedures allowing things to go into system, or system-depended packages, that pulls in all kinds of useless crap. 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). Removing the stage1 and stage2 instructions from the Handbook has already reduced the number of errors being reported by new users to me. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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't seen any emails asking for help or people for releng. This is the first I've heard of your troubles with not having adequate time for all the duties you do yourself. If you need help, please ask for it and at least try and get some of that load off of you so that we don't take things out of gentoo simply because of the lack of time. Apparently you missed his email to -core on the 27th of October with the subject x86 Release Coordinator where he asks for someone to step up to take beejay's old job...the one that he's doing now. -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 tarball + all the distfiles you'll need to go from stage1 to stage3. Assuming you keep all distfiles you already downloaded (which some people do, like me). So you'd just need stage 1, nothing else. Maybe that does not justify keeping stage1 (imho not even though it's useful for me), but it _is_ answering your intial question. ;-) Btw, if i use stage 3 and then emerge -e world to recompile my whole system with -omg-optimized i assume stage 3 may lose against stage 1 and compiling -omg-optimized from the beginning. Not that it makes much sense to do that though. cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 to doing everything yourself. I haven't seen any emails asking for help or people for releng. This is the first I've heard of your troubles with not having adequate time for all the duties you do yourself. If you need help, please ask for it and at least try and get some of that load off of you so that we don't take things out of gentoo simply because of the lack of time. Apparently you missed his email to -core on the 27th of October with the subject x86 Release Coordinator where he asks for someone to step up to take beejay's old job...the one that he's doing now. Yeah, my bad. I guess I was just looking at the -dev mailing list since it has a larger reader-base. I still think he should have sent that to -dev to get more input. I understand that he probably was looking internally for someone, but its best to keep your options open. You never know what person you might find out of the blue to help with the project. Also, I noticed there's no request for this position on the [1] staffing needs page. So you may want to include something there as well. My bad on missing the email on -core. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/staffing-needs/ -- Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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. Stage1: Changing CHOST= and run ./bootstrap.sh (well you can do it but it's dumb) Right. You can do it. 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. You can accomplish this, too. Maybe we could even use that nice little scripts directory in the portage tree to write a script to assist in performing this. I'm sure it would be less error-prone than what we have now with the broken QA procedures allowing things to go into system, or system-depended packages, that pulls in all kinds of useless crap. 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). Removing the stage1 and stage2 instructions from the Handbook has already reduced the number of errors being reported by new users to me. While I'm glad your getting less bugs/errors reported, I'm a little sad that you had stage1 install instructions removed. Starting from stage1 is the basic hardened way. Most of our users (which seem to be 10% of the userbase) start from that stage due to hardened only shipping it's stages as i386-pc-linux-gnu and honestly most users are i686-pc-linux-gnu so they end up changing this. We ship as i386 to ensure all x86 compatibility. I hope that you can arrange for either the stage1 install instructions to be put back in or split off into it's own stage1.xml doc. -- solar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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, 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't seen any emails asking for help or people for releng. This is the first I've heard of your troubles with not having adequate time for all the duties you do yourself. Really? Did you read -core on October 27th? 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 their own packages. A prime example of this is bug #110383. I was always under the impression that if you were adding a flag to a package that affected system that it was your responsibility to ensure that system still works, rather than passing it off onto the Release Engineering team. Now, I don't know what package it is that is pulling in hal for this user, so it most likely is not hal's fault, but it illustrates the point perfectly. If you need help, please ask for it and at least try and get some of that load off of you so that we don't take things out of gentoo simply because of the lack of time. I did. I got exactly *0* responses. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 than 10 minutes. I'd love to see you do the same with a stage1 tarball + all the distfiles you'll need to go from stage1 to stage3. Assuming you keep all distfiles you already downloaded (which some people do, like me). So you'd just need stage 1, nothing else. Maybe that does not justify keeping stage1 (imho not even though it's useful for me), but it _is_ answering your intial question. ;-) Just because you downloaded them previously does not mean you didn't download them. Btw, if i use stage 3 and then emerge -e world to recompile my whole system with -omg-optimized i assume stage 3 may lose against stage 1 and compiling -omg-optimized from the beginning. Not that it makes much sense to do that though. *sigh* You have proven my point. Thank you. If you compile the same sources with the same settings, you get the same output. It doesn't matter if you started from a stage1, stage2, stage3, or stage4 tarball. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 off into it's own stage1.xml doc. I've already agreed that I have no problem with an additional document that instructs on these advanced concepts. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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! Why does nobody want to be my successor? Come on - my footprints aren't that big! Seriously, the reaction of some developers and users smells a bit like Slashdot to me: OMG! They are removing the 133735t part of gent00!!!. Sounds silly, right? Those people that read the install-docs *carefully* are the only ones being r e a d y to do a stage1-install. If they read carefully they will see the link Hey, you can still do stage1 - if you want to then read-on over here. With some exceptions, most of the people replying to this thread obviously have no clue what tracking down a bug in a stage1 installation means: It's a lottery - especially if the user has nearly no knowledge of the backgrounds and can only tell you: !!! ERROR in foo/bar-0.8.15. I'd like all of you to keep this in mind. Gentoo isn't a garage-distribution anymore and I tend to say (though I don't know the exact number of received mails) that those who complained at www@ didn't read the whole story about the removal and are really a minority. 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. Regards Benjamin beejay, the former x86-monkey Judas signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
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 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't seen any emails asking for help or people for releng. This is the first I've heard of your troubles with not having adequate time for all the duties you do yourself. Really? Did you read -core on October 27th? Yeah, as i just sent, My bad on missing that. Sorry about not catching that. If you need help, please ask for it and at least try and get some of that load off of you so that we don't take things out of gentoo simply because of the lack of time. I did. I got exactly *0* responses. Only thing I have to say to that is try sending that email on -dev and try putting it up on the staffing needs page. That way its documented in a public form and other people will see it. No need to start a flame war about this :-) Cheers- -- Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 many were knee-jerk reactions from morons who thought that there was a reason to use stage1s other than for seed stages and to get around a nasty bug in stager (which we no longer use)? -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
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 stage 1 or 2, but would have to remove packages after the fact | if starting from a stage 3? I wouldn't have a problem with that, as | long as we document it emerge -e world emerge -e world emerge depclean Exactly the same results, except that it won't fall over and die because of unlisted circular dependencies. | but it just seems that the claim that the old and new methods produce | _exactly_ the same results seems to be stretching things a bit. How do you think stage3s are built in the first place? -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Look! Shiny things!) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
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 much *exactly* the same as starting a stage1
from scratch...
It isn't pretty much anymore. It *is* exactly the same.
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 remove packages after the fact if
starting from a stage 3? I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long
as we document it, but it just seems that the claim that the old and new
methods produce _exactly_ the same results seems to be stretching things
a bit.
-g2boojum-
There are 3 purposes to a stage1/stage2 install (note all 3 can be
achieved with either a stage3 or a custom rolled stage though catalyst):
1). Modify the bootstrap.sh script to change what the stage2 target
produces.
2). Modify the system target to change what the stage3 target
produces.
3). Modify the CHOST/CFLAGS/USE et. al. early on to create a customized
and largely unsupported (things like hardened, uclibc, and embedded are
exceptions to the unsupported rule) stage3 target.
#3 is where the vast majority of user created bugs occur. The purpose of
highly encouraging users to start with a stage3, by making the handbook
only refer to it, is to make sure that users have a known working
configuration to start their customization from. There are many many
ways to mess up going from a stage1 to a stage3, there are fewer ways to
mess up customizing and recompiling a system that has already been
configured to boot on it's own.
By and large most users will never want to do any of the above for the
reasons that they are really valid for, and any user or developer that
does will have access to both the stages (with relocated documentation)
and catalyst itself to make their own. We are not removing choice
here...just *potentially* making someones initial download time longer.
Personally I wouldn't be at all opposed to moving the stage1 and stage2
tarballs to another directory on the mirrors (documented of course),
just to make it that much clearer that if you start from a stage1 or a
stage2 RelEng won't support you if any errors occur during system build.
If RelEng ever does get to the point of removing stage's 1 2 from the
mirrors (something that has been discussed but isn't on the table at all
right now) end users and developers alike will still be able to generate
them on their own using catalyst and the provided spec files...sure it
is an extra step and all but it's not all that huge...
--
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO DO OTHER PEOPLE'S QA FOR THEM. 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't seen any emails asking for help or people for releng. This is the first I've heard of your troubles with not having adequate time for all the duties you do yourself. Really? Did you read -core on October 27th? Yeah, as i just sent, My bad on missing that. Sorry about not catching that. I'd responded before seeing your response. If you need help, please ask for it and at least try and get some of that load off of you so that we don't take things out of gentoo simply because of the lack of time. I did. I got exactly *0* responses. Only thing I have to say to that is try sending that email on -dev and try putting it up on the staffing needs page. That way its documented in a public form and other people will see it. Actually, I've had a volunteer come forward from among the developer ranks, thunder. I'm going to try to get him up-to-speed for the upcoming release. The main reason why I did not send this to -dev before was that I am already at a stretch for time, and do not have time to bring someone through the recruitment process for this. No need to start a flame war about this :-) Definitely not. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so | from a stage 1 or 2, but would have to remove packages after the fact | if starting from a stage 3? I wouldn't have a problem with that, as | long as we document it emerge -e world emerge -e world emerge depclean Cool. Why rebuild twice? Any chance we could add this to the FAQ? | but it just seems that the claim that the old and new methods produce | _exactly_ the same results seems to be stretching things a bit. How do you think stage3s are built in the first place? Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. Of course it's true that if one follows the handbook (either the current or the previous version), then one ends up with the same system regardless of whether or not a stage1, stage2, or stage3 is used. What I intended to suggest was that tinkering at the system level is less obviously accomplished when starting from a stage3, so the occasional assertion I've read that starting from a stage 1 or stage 2 provides no benefits over starting from a stage 1 or 2 didn't seem right to me. 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 posted a treatise on the issue some time ago (either rac or avenj, I don't remember which)? -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpuMGNgCEAnY.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 much *exactly* the same as starting a stage1 from scratch... It isn't pretty much anymore. It *is* exactly the same. 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 remove packages after the fact if starting from a stage 3? I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as we document it, but it just seems that the claim that the old and new methods produce _exactly_ the same results seems to be stretching things a bit. Who said that removing something isn't a part of the procedure to get an identical build? 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. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 recompile my whole system with -omg-optimized i assume stage 3 may lose against stage 1 and compiling -omg-optimized from the beginning. Not that it makes much sense to do that though. *sigh* You have proven my point. Thank you. No i haven't, but you're still welcome. Maybe i was not clear enough about the definition of losing (see below). If you compile the same sources with the same settings, you get the same output. It doesn't matter if you started from a stage1, stage2, stage3, or stage4 tarball. Sorry, I wasn't really refering to the output but the bytes used for downloading the stage and the distfiles. Assuming emerge -e world compiles exactly the same packages (same versions as well) as stage 1 would mean you're a bit better off with stage 1 because it's slightly smaller. Hence stage 3 may lose by a few bytes here. Look, i'm not arguing with you and even though i think stage 1 has some cool features here i agree removing it may be a good idea. I just wanted to point out there are _some_ specific situations where you're better off with stage 1 under certain circumstances because you asked if there's anything stage 1 can do that 3 doesn't. ;-) cheers, Wernfried -- Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 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 me. All I really want to do is ensure that we preserve our users' ability to tinker with system without making life too painful for them. Starting from a stage 1 it was obvious how to do such tinkering. I would argue that it's not quite as obvious how to do that when starting from a stage 3, so a bit of additional documentation on how to do that would be nice. If that were done, then I would have no complaints about the stage 1 and stage 2 tarballs going away altogether. *Shrug* -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 pgpAjhyhwiUPp.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 fine with me. All I really want to do is ensure that we preserve our users' ability to tinker with system without making life too painful for them. Starting from a stage 1 it was obvious how to do such tinkering. I would argue that it's not quite as obvious how to do that when starting from a stage 3, so a bit of additional documentation on how to do that would be nice. If that were done, then I would have no complaints about the stage 1 and stage 2 tarballs going away altogether. That's kinda what I am shooting for down the line. 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, eventually, drop the stage1 and stage2 tarballs. I was working on the idea of doing it all in stages. The problem occurred from people freaking out because they didn't bother reading the entire news blurb that tells exactly where the instructions moved to, plus links to the bug # and discussion. There's also this nice section in the Handbook. A stage3 tarball is an archive containing a minimal Gentoo environment, suitable to continue the Gentoo installation using the instructions in this manual. Previously, the Gentoo Handbook described the installation using one of three stage tarballs. While Gentoo still offers stage1 and stage2 tarballs, the official installation method uses the stage3 tarball. If you are interested in performing a Gentoo installation using a stage1 or stage2 tarball, please read the Gentoo FAQ on How do I Install Gentoo Using a Stage1 or Stage2 Tarball? 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. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 ultimate goal here (as it seems to me?). So don't support it, but why it should not exist? 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? Alexey Chumakov GDP i18n Russian Lead -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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, then, eventually, drop the stage1 and stage2 tarballs. Erm, did you read what solar wrote about hardened stages and why should stage1 still stay? I was working on the idea of doing it all in stages. The problem occurred from people freaking out because they didn't bother reading the entire news blurb that tells exactly where the instructions moved to, plus links to the bug # and discussion. There's also this nice section in the Handbook. 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 installing with no warning. Announcements earlier noting the pending removal of tarballs to say, g-announce and this list would probably have stifled much of the complains ( see the news hit gentoo-wiki, gentoo-portage, and the community ). Otherwise yeah, you will get a knee-jerk reaction, many users think you just screwed them out of something. Nevermind the fact that they are wrong and uninformed ( in most cases ) you did a crappy job of conveying the message of what when and why. A stage3 tarball is an archive containing a minimal Gentoo environment, suitable to continue the Gentoo installation using the instructions in this manual. Previously, the Gentoo Handbook described the installation using one of three stage tarballs. While Gentoo still offers stage1 and stage2 tarballs, the official installation method uses the stage3 tarball. If you are interested in performing a Gentoo installation using a stage1 or stage2 tarball, please read the Gentoo FAQ on How do I Install Gentoo Using a Stage1 or Stage2 Tarball? 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, there's no reliable tool to remove unneeded stuff from system, I've already mentioned this once) - hmmm... :/ And - once stages 1+2 are removed (as you are suggesting above), then I'll install the system only to build my own stage1 w/ catalyst, then reformat and start over with my own stage? Ah, that makes live sooo much easier ;p Personally if releng is already making stages 1 and 2 for the liveCD's I see no reason not to give that work away to the community. Stick it in some unsupported/ section on the mirrors and tell people so. Why throw away the work you did making the liveCD? Can you quantify the number of bugs here? -Alec Warner (antarus) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgprMbCBaDXqY.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 Engineering. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 of installing with no warning. Announcements earlier noting the pending removal of tarballs to say, g-announce and this list *sigh* Please read the thread you're responding to before making accusations. Nobody has removed any tarballs. would probably have stifled much of the complains ( see the news hit gentoo-wiki, gentoo-portage, and the community ). Otherwise yeah, you will get a knee-jerk reaction, many users think you just screwed them out of something. Nevermind the fact that they are wrong and uninformed ( in most cases ) you did a crappy job of conveying the message of what when and why. No, we changed some text in the Handbook to basically say If you want stages 1 or 2, go here with a link to the new location. Personally if releng is already making stages 1 and 2 for the liveCD's I see no reason not to give that work away to the community. Stick it in some unsupported/ section on the mirrors and tell people so. Why throw away the work you did making the liveCD? Can you quantify the number of bugs here? We don't put out the livecd-stage1 portions of our CD building process, either. Why not? It isn't necessary and it really has no point. As for quantifying the number of bugs, I could do so by searching bugzilla, but so could you. What I cannot quantify, because I haven't even tried to keep track, is the number of times a user has hit a circular dependency in #gentoo or on the forums, or by coming and asking in #gentoo-releng. I cannot quantify the number of times a person has asked what is so broken with our releases when they cannot bootstrap due to some issue where a new USE flag has snuck into the dependency tree for system and is now wanting kernel sources, or has pulled in a MTA or cron daemon that wasn't the one they wanted. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 are in more constructive mood. With this level of irritation caused by anyone who does not jump happily on stage1 grave, the debate lacks any sense. Bleh... I hope you realize that pissing people off is a really terrible way to get them to change their minds. It's more of a way to make them lose motivation and quit doing what they're doing entirely. Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
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 stage3, but whatever... after all I still have the nice choice to not use GRP, as already mentioned previously, so no need to complain. Actually, he's not forcing you to do anything since the stage1 and stage2 tarballs are still being produced. If you want to use them, then you can download them and go ahead with your installation. If you don't understand the process and what you are doing already, then you shouldn't be using them. That being said, I have not seen anyone here offer to support these installation methods. Its nice and all to say we should keep something, but the releng team cannot support everything currently. If you want to save the stage1, then step up and offer to help. Mark pgpx2d6HnxRnl.pgp Description: PGP signature
