| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I would have no issues with that. The simple truth is that no user |
| 7 |
> should be using a stage1 tarball for doing an installation. There's |
| 8 |
> simply no need for it. It introduces countless possibilities for |
| 9 |
> errors, and if you're just unpacking a tarball, running bootstrap.sh, |
| 10 |
> and then emerge -e system, you're not gaining anything. It would be a |
| 11 |
> different story if the user was hand-modifying the bootstrap script to |
| 12 |
> produce a highly modified base system for building, such as if they were |
| 13 |
> adding distcc/ccache/cross-compiling support. As it stands now, most |
| 14 |
> users are doing it for the rice factor. Compiling from stage1 increases |
| 15 |
> the size of their ePenis and gives Release Engineering countless more |
| 16 |
> bugs to contend with after every release. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The only other scenario i can figure out that would benefit from a |
| 19 |
stage1/2 would be if the user is using his own profile. |
| 20 |
But then he could roll his own stages for that too... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- -- |
| 23 |
Gustavo Zacarias |
| 24 |
Gentoo/SPARC monkey |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
iD8DBQFDaM2FV3G/IBCn/JARAp+nAKCDCAMPXHQozyiQPOelSXPU1aMGcQCfcSuT |
| 30 |
YeUzhvO1H5IjT6NeAEXSc5A= |
| 31 |
=aSfP |
| 32 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-releng@g.o mailing list |
Archives