| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 2 |
<zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Not sure this is the way to go. I'll have to think through the |
| 4 |
>> implications. Consider your stage1 build dies with some stupid tree |
| 5 |
>> breakage that you can fix in your portage snapshot and restart the |
| 6 |
>> stage build. This is going to cause your stage to rebuild everything. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Wouldn't disabling the use of binary packages during the seed stage |
| 9 |
>> update fix this? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> I'm not sure I'd call rebuilding it every time a "fix" when you just |
| 13 |
> rejected deleting the bad packages and rebuilding ONCE. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I'm not sure what you mean. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Updating the seed stage should only ever happen once. If that fails |
| 18 |
and you don't have binary packages to fall back to on restarting, I |
| 19 |
think that's an okay price to pay. Especially since it happens early |
| 20 |
enough in the process and avoids potential problems that are only |
| 21 |
noticed at the beginning of stage2. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Oh, and if updating the seed stage fails... it was only rebuilding gcc |
| 24 |
dependencies anyway. That's not so bad at all. (I don't care about |
| 25 |
custom update commands and isn't something that we can fix) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> As I said, the only proper fix is to update the toolchain to EAPI5. We |
| 28 |
> could live in the dark ages forever, but I really don't think it helps |
| 29 |
> anyone. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That seems like a potentially good long term goal, but isn't something |
| 32 |
that we can force through. |
Archives