Re: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1405 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 12:03 -0600, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Nov 22 2005, 09:15:27AM CST]
> > > Well, if we could educate the users that stage2 tarballs are totally 
> > > pointless, and that running bootstrap.sh followed by emerge -e system 
> > > from a stage3 is pretty much *exactly* the same as starting a stage1 
> > > from scratch...
> > 
> > It isn't pretty much anymore.  It *is* exactly the same.
> 
> I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1 and
> a stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to
> dramatically tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so
> from a stage 1 or 2, but would have to remove packages after the fact if
> starting from a stage 3?  I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long
> as we document it, but it just seems that the claim that the old and new
> methods produce _exactly_ the same results seems to be stretching things
> a bit.

Who said that removing something isn't a part of the procedure to get an
identical build?

The point is that following the proper steps, one *can* get the exact
same output.  This would include using --newuse and cleaning out unused
packages, along with any other maintenance items that would be required.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]