1 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:42:04AM -0600, MIkey wrote: |
2 |
> Why I explained a couple of posts further down. I could not duplicate the |
3 |
> problem either, I think it went away in 3.4.4-r1. I don't like posting bug |
4 |
> reports that I can't duplicate and I prefer to be able to either post a |
5 |
> patch or suggest a solution unless it is a trivial matter. |
6 |
|
7 |
So you complain about a problem that is already fixed as if it still |
8 |
exists? I really don't get it. |
9 |
|
10 |
> Which promptly scrolled off of the screen a few days later, never again to |
11 |
> be found unless you know to search for it or read through all of the forums |
12 |
> before doing what the installation handbook describes. |
13 |
|
14 |
As said at least 2 times before, why don't you file a bug report to |
15 |
improve the docs then? |
16 |
|
17 |
> And this is the primary point I am arguing. I keep hearing it, over and |
18 |
> over. My testing leads me to a much different conclusion, I offered |
19 |
> details describing why I reached my conclusions. |
20 |
|
21 |
Your tests are - if i may say so - completely flawed. You disregard |
22 |
the fact that the basic installation time of stage 3 is much lower |
23 |
than the one of stage 1. Unpack the bugger, compile a kernel, that's |
24 |
it. Not much trouble to be expected either - differently to stage 1. |
25 |
|
26 |
Of course you may spend some time now recompiling stuff with your |
27 |
favourite CFLAGS and upgrading gcc, but you can do that while your |
28 |
system is already installed and fully productive (read: watching your |
29 |
favourite movie or writing mails to gentoo-dev) instead of waiting for |
30 |
stage 1 to finish. You don't even have to do it immedeately but |
31 |
whenever you think it's a good time. |
32 |
Furthermore problems with upgrading gcc after the install are most |
33 |
likely easier to solve than a bailed out stage 1. |
34 |
|
35 |
> It is the developers that |
36 |
> decided to stop supporting the stage1 installation method, without asking |
37 |
> users. I am asking you all to justify that decision, preferrably with |
38 |
> facts. |
39 |
|
40 |
Already been discussed a zillion times, please search the archives. |
41 |
|
42 |
> I am claiming that that the stage1 installation method is in fact |
43 |
> much easier, quicker, cleaner, and more dependable. I have still not heard |
44 |
> a reasonable argument to refute that basic assertion. I have heard vague |
45 |
> claims but no quantification. |
46 |
|
47 |
It simply isn't, it's slower (see above) and more things can break. |
48 |
If you want hard proof, go search bugzilla, but don't make us do it |
49 |
for you. |
50 |
|
51 |
I have to admit i often did stage 1 installs because i found it quite |
52 |
funny and a good way to test new hardware. Fact is, stage 1 went away |
53 |
for some reasons and we'll just have to get over it. If you really |
54 |
care that much about Gentoo as you claim, accept the decisions of the |
55 |
people behind the stages and try to help improving the supported stage |
56 |
3 install. |
57 |
|
58 |
cheers, |
59 |
Wernfried |
60 |
|
61 |
-- |
62 |
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org |
63 |
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org |
64 |
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org |