Re: Re[4]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5570 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 22:36 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 22.11.2005, 21:58:50, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> 
> >> That FAQ section has nothing in common with the original stage1 docs. Sorry,
> >> installing stage3 to remove all the use flags cruft subsequently, bootstrap
> >> and re-emerge the system and then ponder which packages are not needed any
> >> more (again, there's no reliable tool to remove unneeded stuff from system,
> >> I've already mentioned this once) - hmmm... :/
> 
> > No.  That FAQ section is there to describe how to install from a stage1
> > or stage2 tarball and has nothing to do with a stage3 tarball, nor did I
> > ever say that it would.  I'm not sure I understand what you're getting
> > at here.
> 
> Uhm, do I really need to quote it here?

Not really, but you're going to do it anyway.

> <snip>
> "How do I Install Gentoo Using a Stage1 or Stage2 Tarball?
> 
> ...
> 
> However, Gentoo still provides stage1 and stage2 tarballs. This is for
> development purposes (the Release Engineering team starts from a stage1 tarball
> to obtain a stage3) but shouldn't be used by users: a stage3 tarball can very
> well be used to bootstrap the system."
> </snip>
> 
> Sorry, but that does not answer the original FAQ question at all...

Umm... yeah.  So you snip it RIGHT BEFORE THE INSTALL INSTRUCTIONS...
Good show... *rolleyes*

> The above does not describe a stage1 install, but a workaround procedure you've
> invented because of your strong dislike of stage1 install. However much you
> say the result is the same, it's not. E.g. - how exactly I get rid of those
> unneeded packages once I've changed the use flags, bootstrapped and rebuilt the
> system? Honestly, stage3 is something I don't find useful for a server install
> because the default use flags are aimed at desktop systems.

emerge -e world && emerge -e world && emerge depclean

This was already answered for you.  Your refusal to accept the answer,
is not my problem.

I'm tired of arguing with you.  You refuse to listen to what I am
saying.  A properly maintained and built system will be identical to one
built from a stage1 tarball.  You cannot argue this point just because
you do not personally know how to do it.  I have already said that we
are working on documenting the process for the users.  This will be done
well before we ever remove a stage1 or stage2 tarball from the mirrors.

> Sure, I can use hardened stage3, compiled for i386 and enjoy the Debian
> feeling. ;p

You can do whatever you like.  Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

That being said, you are not going to force *me* to do anything, either.

> > The whole point here is in what we want to support.
> 
> So don't support it, but let it exist!

Why?  Why would I even bother distributing something that is not worth
distributing?  We don't want testing on them.  We know they are broken.
We don't want users using it.  We know it is broken.  What purpose is
served by putting out something that we KNOW is broken and have no
intentions on fixing due to it being broken BY DESIGN?

> >> Why exactly is evaporating stage1 an ultimate goal here (as it seems to me?).
> 
> > It's usefulness is far outweighed by the problems it causes, and it is
> > really no longer necessary, nor has it been for over a year now.
> 
> Uhm, I've seen quite a couple of examples in this debate why it is still
> necessary and useful.

No.  You really haven't.  You might think that you have, but you have
not.  We also are not advocating anything for either Hardened or
Embedded.  They are their own projects with their own Release Engineers
and their own support infrastructure.  If they want to support a stage1
tarball until the Sun explodes, I don't care.

> >> So don't support it, but why it should not exist?
> 
> > I'll explain this just once.  If we release it, we are expected to
> > support it.  There are *tons* of examples of things we won't do because
> > we don't want the headache of supporting it.  Why should this be any
> > different?
> 
> sigh... You are not required to support it - exactly like you are not expected
> or required to support gcc-4 and gcc-4.1 and you can mark any bugs about it as
> INVALID (happens every day, quite frankly).

Look.  I don't care what you think I should do.  I really don't.  You
can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but until I see you
volunteering to do THE WORK you really have no say.  This really is
something that is an internal decision to Release Engineering.  We have
discussed it and we're in agreement here.  Now, the one thing that I've
not seen *anyone* here do is step up to help with any of this.  Instead,
all I see is flames, name calling, and other useless arguments.  We
decided that we do not want to put out unsupported, known broken, crap.

Do you really not understand the fact that we are making an attempt to
improve the quality of our distribution.  We are trying to improve the
end user experience.  We have already seen that users are not following
the documentation, as it is.  The Handbook keeps growing in size and
complexity, and there's no end in sight.  All the while, the quality is
going to shit because we crossed the line where we can feasibly test
what we're producing a long, LONG time ago.  You're more than welcome to
argue this for as long as you want, but I am done.

-- 
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 --]