I kind of agree with both points here. :) Let me explain...
If the RCx releases would use updated packages that are in the stable tree
(ie. glibc 2.3.1, gcc 3.2.2, etc) I think people like Per, Nicholas, and
myself would be a bit happier building and testing older systems. :)
If they are in the stable tree why not? Could this be done in the rc4 release?
Another keyword like BUILD_ACCEPT_KEYWORDS = x86 would probably satisfy those
with the urge to be super on edge :) and could probably be done with min.
effort in changes to the scripts to look for another keyword. Yes? No? maybe?
Should I add it to the "bug" report?
On Sunday 16 March 2003 12:00 pm, Nicholas Hockey wrote:
> if your by a river in florida chances yer in a swamp, or near a sink
> hole, not a good place to lay the foundation of your house
> On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 14:49, Felipe Ghellar wrote:
> > Nicholas Hockey wrote:
> > > well there is a reason that the base system is set up a certain way,
> > > it's so that when you do run the bootstrap it will compile, in Linux
> > > there is no real "base system" as there is in freebsd, so the only
> > > logical way around this is to build a good foundation, which is well
> > > known to build a complete system, at the sacrifice of time.
> > Ok, let's simulate the installation process...
> > 1) I preapare everything according to the Install Guide
> > 2) I set up my make.conf the way I want it, with ~x86
> > 3) I run bootstrap.sh; it ignores my "unstable" choice and builds a
> > "stable" base system
> > 4) I run emerge system and then complete the installation
> > 5) later, I run emerge --sync and emerge -u --deep system; it now
> > follows my "unstable" choice and brings in all those packages
> > bootstrap.sh ignored
> > The net result is just that "sacrifice of time" you mentioned...
> > > or they could do it your way, by the way i have some cheap land in
> > > Florida, right next to the river, i'll sell it to you, by your
> > > standards it should be a great place to build a house
> > >
> > > (sorry if this sounds rude i just thought this would be a good
> > > comparison)
> > Sorry, I don't get your point... (and I did't take it as rude)
> > Felipe Ghellar
email@example.com mailing list