1 |
22.11.2005, 21:58:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> That FAQ section has nothing in common with the original stage1 docs. Sorry, |
4 |
>> installing stage3 to remove all the use flags cruft subsequently, bootstrap |
5 |
>> and re-emerge the system and then ponder which packages are not needed any |
6 |
>> more (again, there's no reliable tool to remove unneeded stuff from system, |
7 |
>> I've already mentioned this once) - hmmm... :/ |
8 |
|
9 |
> No. That FAQ section is there to describe how to install from a stage1 |
10 |
> or stage2 tarball and has nothing to do with a stage3 tarball, nor did I |
11 |
> ever say that it would. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting |
12 |
> at here. |
13 |
|
14 |
Uhm, do I really need to quote it here? |
15 |
|
16 |
<snip> |
17 |
"How do I Install Gentoo Using a Stage1 or Stage2 Tarball? |
18 |
|
19 |
... |
20 |
|
21 |
However, Gentoo still provides stage1 and stage2 tarballs. This is for |
22 |
development purposes (the Release Engineering team starts from a stage1 tarball |
23 |
to obtain a stage3) but shouldn't be used by users: a stage3 tarball can very |
24 |
well be used to bootstrap the system." |
25 |
</snip> |
26 |
|
27 |
Sorry, but that does not answer the original FAQ question at all... |
28 |
The above does not describe a stage1 install, but a workaround procedure you've |
29 |
invented because of your strong dislike of stage1 install. However much you |
30 |
say the result is the same, it's not. E.g. - how exactly I get rid of those |
31 |
unneeded packages once I've changed the use flags, bootstrapped and rebuilt the |
32 |
system? Honestly, stage3 is something I don't find useful for a server install |
33 |
because the default use flags are aimed at desktop systems. |
34 |
|
35 |
Sure, I can use hardened stage3, compiled for i386 and enjoy the Debian |
36 |
feeling. ;p |
37 |
|
38 |
> The whole point here is in what we want to support. |
39 |
|
40 |
So don't support it, but let it exist! |
41 |
|
42 |
>> Why exactly is evaporating stage1 an ultimate goal here (as it seems to me?). |
43 |
|
44 |
> It's usefulness is far outweighed by the problems it causes, and it is |
45 |
> really no longer necessary, nor has it been for over a year now. |
46 |
|
47 |
Uhm, I've seen quite a couple of examples in this debate why it is still |
48 |
necessary and useful. |
49 |
|
50 |
>> So don't support it, but why it should not exist? |
51 |
|
52 |
> I'll explain this just once. If we release it, we are expected to |
53 |
> support it. There are *tons* of examples of things we won't do because |
54 |
> we don't want the headache of supporting it. Why should this be any |
55 |
> different? |
56 |
|
57 |
sigh... You are not required to support it - exactly like you are not expected |
58 |
or required to support gcc-4 and gcc-4.1 and you can mark any bugs about it as |
59 |
INVALID (happens every day, quite frankly). |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
|
64 |
jakub |