| 1 |
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 17:25 -0500, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Here's my take. The purpose of stage1 is to get you to stage2. Stage |
| 3 |
> 1's psychological purpose is "look ma, I can boostrap". If we go to two |
| 4 |
> stages, take out 1, and let the emerge -e system step be the one that |
| 5 |
> the customisation starts at (including things like changing |
| 6 |
> /etc/portage/profile/virtuals to change virtual/editor to vim or emacs |
| 7 |
> or blah). You don't do any of that in stage1, it's stage2 that all the |
| 8 |
> action actually happens. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The bugs I am receiving are all in the "emerge -e system" step due to |
| 11 |
requirements on configured kernels and improper dependency tracking. |
| 12 |
The dependency issue isn't going to resolve itself, but there is nothing |
| 13 |
to resolve the "kernel-dependent packages in system" problem other than |
| 14 |
not having such a broken system to begin with for the user. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Having said that, you will see a lot of noise about wanting stage1's. |
| 17 |
> Stage 3 has the advantage of speed, but the disadvantage of defaults |
| 18 |
> like nano (which then need to be expressly replaced). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Agreed. There are some drawbacks, but I've found that these are still |
| 21 |
minimal compared to compiling an entire USE="bootstrap" toolchain right |
| 22 |
before compiling the entire "system" target, including toolchain, all |
| 23 |
over again. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Anyway, I don't think I've added any help in one direction or another, |
| 26 |
> just putting my thoughts out there. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
They're very much appreciated. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 32 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 33 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 34 |
Games - Developer |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives