1.1

On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:31:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The only problem that I see with this is that he has come up with no
> real viable solution other than offering a stage3 tarball.  That is fine
> and dandy, but Release Engineering is working on the future removal of
> all tarballs *except* for stage1.  The other stageballs would be created
> on-the-fly.  Now, this won't be the case for 2005.0 or even 2005.1, but
> I suspect by 2006.0 we will not be offering any stages other thana
> stage1.

As Jason said in a previous email, portage should be fixed to handle
circular dependency stuff around 2005.1.  I would think this alleviates a
lot of the concerns that rac has.  (though I don't pretend to understand
the issues to the same level that either Jason or Rob do)

> What this means is if we have something wrong with a stage1 tarball
> that:
> 
> #1. rac should talk to releng rather than posting contrary information

To be fair, when you and I talked in #gentoo-installer a few weeks ago
about dumping stage tarballs, I told you that rac had some concerns about
this and that you should talk to him about it.

> #2. we should work to resolve any problems with the stage1 tarball

I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  I think rac's solution is more
of a band-aid than anything.  I think he along with everyone else would
like to see a better, more robust solution put in place.  In the mean time,
however, I don't think it hurts to notify our users of the problems with
stage 1 tarballs, *in their current form*, and suggest a work-around while
we work to fix them for a future version.

--kurt