Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] Stage3 better than stage1/2
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 13:39:15
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-doc] Stage3 better than stage1/2 by Chris Gianelloni
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 08:31:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> The only problem that I see with this is that he has come up with no > real viable solution other than offering a stage3 tarball. That is fine > and dandy, but Release Engineering is working on the future removal of > all tarballs *except* for stage1. The other stageballs would be created > on-the-fly. Now, this won't be the case for 2005.0 or even 2005.1, but > I suspect by 2006.0 we will not be offering any stages other thana > stage1.
As Jason said in a previous email, portage should be fixed to handle circular dependency stuff around 2005.1. I would think this alleviates a lot of the concerns that rac has. (though I don't pretend to understand the issues to the same level that either Jason or Rob do)
> What this means is if we have something wrong with a stage1 tarball > that: > > #1. rac should talk to releng rather than posting contrary information
To be fair, when you and I talked in #gentoo-installer a few weeks ago about dumping stage tarballs, I told you that rac had some concerns about this and that you should talk to him about it.
> #2. we should work to resolve any problems with the stage1 tarball
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I think rac's solution is more of a band-aid than anything. I think he along with everyone else would like to see a better, more robust solution put in place. In the mean time, however, I don't think it hurts to notify our users of the problems with stage 1 tarballs, *in their current form*, and suggest a work-around while we work to fix them for a future version. --kurt


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] Stage3 better than stage1/2 Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>