[gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Jan Schubert]

Just installed gentoo (stage1-1.4) and i'm very satisfied. Your install 
guide is one of the best documentation i've ever seen - short and extensive.

There are just some very small points to mention:
- You should make very clear that tmpfs and devfs is needed while 
configuring the kernel (you should also mention, that tmpfs means 
"Virtual Memory FS")
- you should include some more examples for CFLAGS in make.conf 
(Pentium4, Athlon)

And the most important thing: Why is there no vi(m) included in the 
base-system? For many advanced users this is the only usable editor, i 
had some problems using nano...

I've seen, that some ebuilds are not at the edge of the time: Perl is 
still 5.6.1, but 5.8 is out for some weeks now; Gentoo-sources refers 
still to a 2.4.19-pre

Thx a lot,
Jan

-- 
Jan Schubert                       +49-7541-6047-101
doubleSlash Net-Business GmbH      Jan.Schubert@doubleSlash.de
Muellerstr. 12                     http://doubleSlash.de
D-88045 Friedrichshafen

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Marcus Przyklink]

Jan Schubert wrote:
> Just installed gentoo (stage1-1.4) and i'm very satisfied. Your install 
> guide is one of the best documentation i've ever seen - short and extensive.

full ACK. The gentoo documentation is really good.

> There are just some very small points to mention:
> - You should make very clear that tmpfs and devfs is needed while 
> configuring the kernel (you should also mention, that tmpfs means 
> "Virtual Memory FS")
> - you should include some more examples for CFLAGS in make.conf 
> (Pentium4, Athlon)

I think you can find full explanation of the CFLAGS in the internet or
in the manpage of gcc, I like the short gentoo documentation. But maybe
a link to an online manpage of gcc would be good.

> And the most important thing: Why is there no vi(m) included in the 
> base-system? For many advanced users this is the only usable editor, i 
> had some problems using nano...

There is nothing like the only usable editor or such, some people like
joe, some pico/nano, some vim, some emacs. I think nano is quite a good
choice, small and easy to use. I'm too a vim-fan, but feel comfortable
with nano as standardeditor.

> I've seen, that some ebuilds are not at the edge of the time: Perl is 
> still 5.6.1, but 5.8 is out for some weeks now; Gentoo-sources refers 
> still to a 2.4.19-pre

Perl 5.8 is masked because of some incompatibleties. You can unmask 
it by editing /usr/portage/profiles/packages.mask and comment the
line with perl 5.8. And the kernelsources are 2.4.19 without pre here,
maybe you should do an emerge rsync.

Bye,
  Marcus

-- 
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing
is a miracle. The other is as though everything ist.
  [Albert Einstein]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Sami Dalouche]

one good idea would maybe be to put ALL the gentoo documentation on the
bootable CD-ROM, wouldn't it ?
if it was as .txt, like /install.txt, it'd be way easier to consult it, and
it's during the
bootstrapping / install that we have the time to read all of it ;-)

sam


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Przyklink" <downhill@uchusphere.de>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback


> Jan Schubert wrote:
> > Just installed gentoo (stage1-1.4) and i'm very satisfied. Your install
> > guide is one of the best documentation i've ever seen - short and
extensive.
>
> full ACK. The gentoo documentation is really good.
>
> > There are just some very small points to mention:
> > - You should make very clear that tmpfs and devfs is needed while
> > configuring the kernel (you should also mention, that tmpfs means
> > "Virtual Memory FS")
> > - you should include some more examples for CFLAGS in make.conf
> > (Pentium4, Athlon)
>
> I think you can find full explanation of the CFLAGS in the internet or
> in the manpage of gcc, I like the short gentoo documentation. But maybe
> a link to an online manpage of gcc would be good.
>
> > And the most important thing: Why is there no vi(m) included in the
> > base-system? For many advanced users this is the only usable editor, i
> > had some problems using nano...
>
> There is nothing like the only usable editor or such, some people like
> joe, some pico/nano, some vim, some emacs. I think nano is quite a good
> choice, small and easy to use. I'm too a vim-fan, but feel comfortable
> with nano as standardeditor.
>
> > I've seen, that some ebuilds are not at the edge of the time: Perl is
> > still 5.6.1, but 5.8 is out for some weeks now; Gentoo-sources refers
> > still to a 2.4.19-pre
>
> Perl 5.8 is masked because of some incompatibleties. You can unmask
> it by editing /usr/portage/profiles/packages.mask and comment the
> line with perl 5.8. And the kernelsources are 2.4.19 without pre here,
> maybe you should do an emerge rsync.
>
> Bye,
>   Marcus
>
> --
> There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing
> is a miracle. The other is as though everything ist.
>   [Albert Einstein]
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 723 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:00:44 +0200
Jan Schubert <Jan.Schubert@doubleSlash.de> wrote:

> I've seen, that some ebuilds are not at the edge of the time: Perl is 
> still 5.6.1, but 5.8 is out for some weeks now; Gentoo-sources refers 
> still to a 2.4.19-pre
> 

5.8 is in portage, masked. Perl 5.8's MakeMaker is incompatible with a few dozen of our ebuilds. Until I have finished reworking them and have them verified by other users, I will not be unmasking 5.8. The version (-r2) that is in portage right now is not perfect, there are still a few loose ends to tie up in the final configuration, but you are welcome to unmask it locally or force an emerge of it (emerge perl-5.8.0-r2.ebuild in /usr/portage/sys-dev/perl/).

[-- Attachment #1.2: 00000000.mimetmp --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Perl (Was Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback)

[Evan Read]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:41, Michael Cummings wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:00:44 +0200
>
> Jan Schubert <Jan.Schubert@doubleSlash.de> wrote:
> > I've seen, that some ebuilds are not at the edge of the time: Perl is
> > still 5.6.1, but 5.8 is out for some weeks now; Gentoo-sources refers
> > still to a 2.4.19-pre
>
> 5.8 is in portage, masked. Perl 5.8's MakeMaker is incompatible with a few
> dozen of our ebuilds. Until I have finished reworking them and have them
> verified by other users, I will not be unmasking 5.8. The version (-r2)
> that is in portage right now is not perfect, there are still a few loose
> ends to tie up in the final configuration, but you are welcome to unmask it
> locally or force an emerge of it (emerge perl-5.8.0-r2.ebuild in
> /usr/portage/sys-dev/perl/).

Let us not have any perl upgrade until it is ready.

Actually, let us not have any upgrade until it is ready ;)

Evan.

Re: Perl (Was Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback)

[Michael Cummings]

=:)

nope, that's all I wanted to say.

Mike
On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 12:50:18PM +1000, Evan Read wrote:
> Let us not have any perl upgrade until it is ready.
> 
> Actually, let us not have any upgrade until it is ready ;)
> 
> Evan.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Thomas M. Beaudry]

> one good idea would maybe be to put ALL the gentoo documentation on the
> bootable CD-ROM, wouldn't it ?
> if it was as .txt, like /install.txt, it'd be way easier to consult it, and
> it's during the
> bootstrapping / install that we have the time to read all of it ;-)

I'd agree for those booting from the CD.  If not that, then a 
functioning browser so they can read it on the web site.  I always do my 
installs from an existing install and I've always a browser open to the 
documentation.  Comes in very handy and saves me the shelf space for 
another binder.

-- 
Thomas M. Beaudry
k8la / ys1ztm

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Rigo Ketelings]

On zo, 2002-08-25 at 14:12, Alexander Gretencord wrote:
> On Saturday 24 August 2002 23:00, Jan Schubert wrote:
> 
> > And the most important thing: Why is there no vi(m) included in the
> > base-system? For many advanced users this is the only usable editor, i
> > had some problems using nano...

Problems is a big word, but yes I like vi too :-)

> 
> Well search the mailing list archives, we've had that discussion but don't ask 
> me why they don't include vi after that. (not vim of course it really is 
> quite big) but the "original vi" would suffice for an installation. Space is 
> no argument then and after all gentoo is aimed at power users which should 
> all be familiar with vi as it is the one editor you'll get in every *nix 
> (just not gentoo :( ). First thing I do after having emerge at hand is 
> emerging vi(m) so I can really do some file editing. Yes nano _is_ a hassle 

a hassle is again a big word 4 me...I would just prefer to ask very
nice:

*making his thrustworthy look* please, pretty PLEASE ;-D ?

> to use if you're used to vi. Sure it can be done and the directions at the 
> bottom are clearly better for ppl not used to unix ... *stop* we've had that 
> discussion :)

:-D

> 
> 
> Alex

The only thing I can say is 'yes, I emerge vi/nvi as quickly as possible
too' ... A hassle to work with Nano ? Nope, nice to see a different
editor 4 a change (give 5 minutes of nano, and I remember why I LOVE vi
again...Actually - just because of that - I like this nano-part during
the install a lot :-D !


Just my 2 cents,

Rigo


> 
> -- 
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety 
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Saturday 24 August 2002 23:00, Jan Schubert wrote:

> And the most important thing: Why is there no vi(m) included in the
> base-system? For many advanced users this is the only usable editor, i
> had some problems using nano...

Well search the mailing list archives, we've had that discussion but don't ask 
me why they don't include vi after that. (not vim of course it really is 
quite big) but the "original vi" would suffice for an installation. Space is 
no argument then and after all gentoo is aimed at power users which should 
all be familiar with vi as it is the one editor you'll get in every *nix 
(just not gentoo :( ). First thing I do after having emerge at hand is 
emerging vi(m) so I can really do some file editing. Yes nano _is_ a hassle 
to use if you're used to vi. Sure it can be done and the directions at the 
bottom are clearly better for ppl not used to unix ... *stop* we've had that 
discussion :)


Alex

-- 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Sunday 25 August 2002 13:05, Rigo Ketelings wrote:
> a hassle is again a big word 4 me...I would just prefer to ask very
> nice:

Hehe, maybe gentoo is just so great, we need something else to pick at :)

> *making his thrustworthy look* please, pretty PLEASE ;-D ?

Oh that one didn't work either :)

> The only thing I can say is 'yes, I emerge vi/nvi as quickly as possible
> too' ... A hassle to work with Nano ? Nope, nice to see a different
> editor 4 a change (give 5 minutes of nano, and I remember why I LOVE vi
> again...Actually - just because of that - I like this nano-part during
> the install a lot :-D !

See what I mean it _is_ a hassle :P

Anyway, one thing I hated about the "discussion" was the arguments against vi 
and for nano (space which is a non issue). We don't want vim with syntax 
highlighting and all that stuff which gets quite big, just a small lil vi.


Alex

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Nils Decker]

Alexander Gretencord <arutha@gmx.de> wrote:
> Anyway, one thing I hated about the "discussion" was the arguments
> against vi and for nano (space which is a non issue). We don't want
> vim with syntax highlighting and all that stuff which gets quite big,
> just a small lil vi.

I think the main argument against vi was, that it is hard to use for
somebody not knowing vi. Nano may not be as nice, but everybody should
be able to use it without learning too much. Vi can be emerged just
after bootstrapping.

Just remember: If everybody is complaining, it is the right compromise ;-)

Regards
  Nils

( And yes, i use vi(m) too )

-- 
Before you open your mouth to speak, please make sure it's an 
improvement upon the silence.

Nils Decker <ndecker@gmx.de>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Just some Feedback

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Sunday 25 August 2002 20:51, Nils Decker wrote:
> I think the main argument against vi was, that it is hard to use for
> somebody not knowing vi. Nano may not be as nice, but everybody should
> be able to use it without learning too much. Vi can be emerged just
> after bootstrapping.

I do recognize that one tho gentoo is not aimed at newbies some "not so new 
newbies" might not know vi but can set up a gentoo system. My problems with 
the discussion were space and the "why not emacs then" arguments.

> Just remember: If everybody is complaining, it is the right compromise ;-)

As I said I recognize the nano argument about "newbies" but anyway we had that 
discussion and I guess even gentoo can't be perfect :)

Alex