| 1 |
On 11/16/05, Benjamin Martin <outrage@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 16 November 2005 21:12, Nick Rout wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:20:36 -0500 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Derek Tracy wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Part way through the online handbook I noticed that |
| 7 |
> > > they standardized the Stage3 install. I figured that since the developers |
| 8 |
> > > thought it was best to use a Stage3 install then why not give it a shot. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I read your message and was surprised at this. Last time I read the |
| 11 |
> > handbooks the Handbook gave stage 1/2/3 options and the 2005.1 handbook |
| 12 |
> > stuck to stage 3. (Talking x86 here, I have never done an instal on |
| 13 |
> > other architectures). |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Now, like you, I read this in the Handbook: |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > "Make sure you download a stage3 tarball - installations using a stage1 or |
| 18 |
> > stage2 tarball are not supported anymore." |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> To be honest, this is the first time i see this. I always did stage 1 |
| 21 |
> installs. Haven't done so in a while that's why I'm a little surprised about |
| 22 |
> this. |
| 23 |
> What exactly were the reasons for such a move? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm not a developer and I've never done a Stage 1 install so I cannot |
| 26 |
say for sure, but it's my understanding that after a Stage 3 install |
| 27 |
most people end up rebuilding everything anyway within a few weeks. |
| 28 |
Very soon my Stage 3 and your Stage 1 are identical. The Stage 1 |
| 29 |
allows me to get the machine up and running sooner. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Just my take on the question. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Cheers, |
| 34 |
Mark |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives