1 |
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 15:29 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
2 |
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > Why are you spreading such blatant misinformation? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Look at it from the new installer's point of view. He reads that stage 1 |
7 |
> allows him to customise his Gentoo system (whether the one he's installing |
8 |
> or the one he's installing with isn't made clear), and that stage 3 will |
9 |
> make him put up with optimisations chosen by the distribution team. Now, I |
10 |
> ask you, how is he to know that (for present purposes) it matters not one |
11 |
> jot in the long run which stage he chooses, because recompilation of the |
12 |
> entire system is recommended after installation? He's quite likely to finish |
13 |
> the installation and then just go on to use it, oblivious of other |
14 |
> possibilities. |
15 |
|
16 |
You didn't answer my question. |
17 |
|
18 |
I think you also missed the entire point of this thread is that we are |
19 |
*changing* the Handbook to match the current state of affairs. The |
20 |
truth is that the Handbook has been incorrect since 2005.0 was released. |
21 |
|
22 |
> > Exactly what is gained by compiling the toolchain twice on your system? |
23 |
> > What do you gain that cannot be accomplished by using a stage3 tarball, |
24 |
> > editing make.conf and running an emerge -e system? |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I suggest you read the long thread on emwrap that I pointed you to last |
27 |
> time. Then tell me it's all rubbish and that your method is best. |
28 |
|
29 |
I really don't have the time to read the entire discussion, but from |
30 |
what I did read, it looks like a load of bull. My method is all that is |
31 |
required. |
32 |
|
33 |
Aside from that, I don't know what point you're trying to make. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Chris Gianelloni |
37 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
38 |
x86 Architecture Team |
39 |
Games - Developer |
40 |
Gentoo Linux |