[gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[FRLinux]

Hello,

Got a quick question, got several systems running Gentoo 1.4rc2/3 and
been updating them using : emerge -U world so they seems quite up to
date concerning gcc and glibc.

What pros would you see in actually scratching the system to a 1.4 final
?

Steph
-- 
Mail sent on Gentoo 1.4rc3 k2.6-test3 AMD 2600+
http://frlinux.net - frlinux@frlinux.net
http://gentoofr.org - Portail Francais sur Gentoo Linux




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

begin  quote
On 14 Aug 2003 20:56:09 +0100
FRLinux <frlinux@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Got a quick question, got several systems running Gentoo 1.4rc2/3 and
> been updating them using : emerge -U world so they seems quite up to
> date concerning gcc and glibc.
> 
> What pros would you see in actually scratching the system to a 1.4
> final?
> 


None, there wouldn't be any difference at all in your system.   1.4 is
the package release and the livecd's, not the resulting systems.


//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Owen Gunden]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:58:35PM +0200, Spider wrote:
> None, there wouldn't be any difference at all in your system.   1.4 is
> the package release and the livecd's, not the resulting systems.

This kind of question comes up all the time.  I often wonder if it's not a
waste of effort to try and force gentoo into a notion of "releases", when
it's so unnatural to do so.

It would be cool to come up with some other, more gentoo-ish way of
expressing progress in the distribution.

Ideas anyone?  Or am I being a total kook?

Owen

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Peter Ruskin]

On Thursday 14 Aug 2003 23:20, Owen Gunden wrote:
> This kind of question comes up all the time.  I often wonder if it's
> not a waste of effort to try and force gentoo into a notion of
> "releases", when it's so unnatural to do so.
>
> It would be cool to come up with some other, more gentoo-ish way of
> expressing progress in the distribution.

emerge -V
gives more useful information - see signature

Peter
-- 
======================================================================
Gentoo:	Portage 2.0.48-r5 (default-x86-1.4, gcc-3.2.3, glibc-2.3.2-r1)
kernel-2.4.22_pre2-gss i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1600+
======================================================================


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Zack Gilburd]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

On Thursday 14 August 2003 03:20 pm, Owen Gunden wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:58:35PM +0200, Spider wrote:
> > None, there wouldn't be any difference at all in your system.   1.4 is
> > the package release and the livecd's, not the resulting systems.
>
> This kind of question comes up all the time.  I often wonder if it's not a
> waste of effort to try and force gentoo into a notion of "releases", when
> it's so unnatural to do so.
>
> It would be cool to come up with some other, more gentoo-ish way of
> expressing progress in the distribution.
>
> Ideas anyone?  Or am I being a total kook?
>
> Owen

This notion has been expressed over and over again -- and it's a very good 
one.  I, too, think that Gentoo should move away from the concept of 
definitive releases.  However, it would be very hard to distinguish landmark 
releases from eachother without some sort of versioning system.  Also, 
sometimes something very major happens in Linux that requires the separation 
of landmark releases for the sake of system sanity (think gcc 2.x.x -> gcc 
3.x.x).

I really have no ideas on how else it should be done, but it does need a 
change.  Some users feel obligated to reinstall, and do so needlessly.

-- 
Zack Gilburd
 http://tehunlose.com
  GnuPG Key ID: A79A45668240AB6C

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[C. Brewer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

 I'd like to say I've always considered the version cat'd into
/etc/gentoo-release as the definitive version. Since packages change every
day, baselayout is certainly more rare in it's updates. Considering that,
and that fact that on a baselayout update most,if not sometimes all, of your
core configuration files are either altered or presented for trivial
updates, I consider this to be true versioning. I also believe that the rc
should be changed to prc (packaged release candidate) solely on the fact
that it is just basically a prepacked timesaver for the regular joe. The
ambitious have and will continue to either burn their own stage one-three or
get the tarballs and hack it together in their own fashion. I think the
change to prc would reflect the " this is the approved package set-up during
the 1.4 phase of baselayout " rather than the "oh no, a new version,we gotta
upgrade " paranoia.

Or I could be paranoid myself.....



-- 
Chuck Brewer
Registered Linux User #284015
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.



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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Camille Huot]

we can just rename "release" to something like "snapshot" to show that this
only is Gentoo at a certain time. ie: "gentoo snap-20030801"

my 2 cents
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Gunden" <ogunden@stwing.upenn.edu>
To: <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's


> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:58:35PM +0200, Spider wrote:
> > None, there wouldn't be any difference at all in your system.   1.4 is
> > the package release and the livecd's, not the resulting systems.
>
> This kind of question comes up all the time.  I often wonder if it's not a
> waste of effort to try and force gentoo into a notion of "releases", when
> it's so unnatural to do so.
>
> It would be cool to come up with some other, more gentoo-ish way of
> expressing progress in the distribution.
>
> Ideas anyone?  Or am I being a total kook?
>
> Owen
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Georgi Georgiev]

On 15/08/2003 at 11:44:21(+0200), Camille Huot used 1.0K just to say:
> we can just rename "release" to something like "snapshot" to show that this
> only is Gentoo at a certain time. ie: "gentoo snap-20030801"

I associate the word "snapshots" with something incomplete. That's because the
word is mostly used by projects that offer cvs snapshots. I agree that it is
the most correct name, even though it may not be the most descriptive one.

-- 
/\   Georgi Georgiev   /\ Live fast, die young, and leave a good       /\
\/    chutz@gg3.net    \/ looking corpse. -- James Dean                \/
/\  +81(90)6266-1163   /\                                              /\

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Phil Richards]

In article <20030815095406.GA17581%chutz@gg3.net>, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
>  On 15/08/2003 at 11:44:21(+0200), Camille Huot used 1.0K just to say:
> > we can just rename "release" to something like "snapshot" to show that this
> > only is Gentoo at a certain time. ie: "gentoo snap-20030801"
>  I associate the word "snapshots" with something incomplete. That's because the
>  word is mostly used by projects that offer cvs snapshots. I agree that it is
>  the most correct name, even though it may not be the most descriptive one.

How about "milestone"?  It doesn't abbreviate very well, though:
"gentoo mile-1.4" or "gentoo stone-1.4" or (perish the thought)
"gentoo MS-1.4" :-)

One thing I would note, however, is that reinstalling gentoo from
scratch is a good way to uninstall all those packages that used
to be needed but aren't anymore (old package dependencies) and it
also makes sure that you are using the latest version of the
ebuilds.

As a ~x86 person, I find that most of the ebuilds used to install a
package are (sometimes non-trivially) different from the "latest" ones
under /usr/portage.  (And, no, I'm not talking about different ebuild
versions - I'm talking about the ebuilds with exactly the same names.)

phil
-- 
change "spams" to "phil" for email


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 295 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 06:06, Phil Richards wrote:

> How about "milestone"?  It doesn't abbreviate very well, though:
> "gentoo mile-1.4" or "gentoo stone-1.4" or (perish the thought)
> "gentoo MS-1.4" :-)

Gentoo M1.4 or M14 could work.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

On 15/08/2003 at 09:30:21(-0400), Chris Gianelloni used 0.7K just to say:
> On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 06:06, Phil Richards wrote:
> 
> > How about "milestone"?  It doesn't abbreviate very well, though:
> > "gentoo mile-1.4" or "gentoo stone-1.4" or (perish the thought)
> > "gentoo MS-1.4" :-)
> 
> Gentoo M1.4 or M14 could work.

Count my vote for the above.

-- 
\    Georgi Georgiev   \  Each of us bears his own Hell. -- Publius    \
/     chutz@gg3.net    /  Vergilius Maro (Virgil)                      /
\   +81(90)6266-1163   \                                               \

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[William Kenworthy]

I agree with the negative connotation snapshop, but so is a forever rc
candidate.  How about checkpoint like the database boys do? - its prob
the most correct measure of gentoos status.

BillK

On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 17:54, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> On 15/08/2003 at 11:44:21(+0200), Camille Huot used 1.0K just to say:

> 
> I associate the word "snapshots" with something incomplete. That's because the
> word is mostly used by projects that offer cvs snapshots. I agree that it is
> the most correct name, even though it may not be the most descriptive one.
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Michael Cummings]

Another 2 cents (can we buy a cup of coffee yet?) -

What about "milestone" instead?

-- 


-----o()o---------------------------------------------
              |  http://www.gentoo.org/
              |  #gentoo-dev  on irc.freenode.net
Gentoo Dev    |  #gentoo-perl on irc.freenode.net
Perl Guy      |
              |  GnuPG Key ID:       AB5CED4E9E7F4E2E
-----o()o---------------------------------------------


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[matt c]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Cummings" <mcummings@gentoo.org>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's


> Another 2 cents (can we buy a cup of coffee yet?) -
>
> What about "milestone" instead?

I think this will still cause confusion among the users. Calling Gentoo
anything other than Gentoo (even a milestone or a snapshot) is still giving
it a version number. A version number implies that there is something to be
updated. Sure, the baselayout changes, as does gcc and xfree, etc. But this
is a constantly changing thing - HIGHLY dependant upon your ~arch or lack
thereof, and how often you update packages. Users will still think they need
to "reinstall" or "upgrade" something.

I think that is the strength of Gentoo - no two installations will ever be
even close to the same. How can one put any sort of number on this? By
versioning the stages, we remove any doubt about what people have - one
could say "I installed with Gentoo Stage1-1.4 and I now have a 'Gentoo
System'." How can one put a version number on my system (which is completely
and utterly different than almost any one elses?) The only thing my
installation has in common with anyone elses is that I installed from the
same stage and stage version as others did.

Matt



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Todd Berman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: matt c [mailto:matt@legalizefreedom.org]
> Sent: August 15, 2003 1:00 PM
> To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Cummings" <mcummings@gentoo.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 6:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's
> 
> 
> > Another 2 cents (can we buy a cup of coffee yet?) -
> >
> > What about "milestone" instead?
> 
> I think this will still cause confusion among the users. Calling
Gentoo
> anything other than Gentoo (even a milestone or a snapshot) is still
> giving
> it a version number. A version number implies that there is something
to
> be
> updated. Sure, the baselayout changes, as does gcc and xfree, etc. But
> this
> is a constantly changing thing - HIGHLY dependant upon your ~arch or
lack
> thereof, and how often you update packages. Users will still think
they
> need
> to "reinstall" or "upgrade" something.
> 
> I think that is the strength of Gentoo - no two installations will
ever be
> even close to the same. How can one put any sort of number on this? By
> versioning the stages, we remove any doubt about what people have -
one
> could say "I installed with Gentoo Stage1-1.4 and I now have a 'Gentoo
> System'." How can one put a version number on my system (which is
> completely
> and utterly different than almost any one elses?) The only thing my
> installation has in common with anyone elses is that I installed from
the
> same stage and stage version as others did.

Not exactly, you are missing a very important thing your installation
had in common with a lot of other peoples.

The Portage Tree.


> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Just something to think about :)

-Todd



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[matt c]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 979 bytes --]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Todd Berman" <tberman@gentoo.org>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

> Not exactly, you are missing a very important thing your installation
> had in common with a lot of other peoples.
>
> The Portage Tree.
> Just something to think about :)

I think you're missing something though -  my system (and your system) also
have gcc and python and all the neat gnu utilities like awk, and grep, and
bash, etc. These are all *different versions* depending on when you
last --updated them. The portage tree is also *VERY* different based on when
you last ran emerge sync - it changes hourly. My portage tree is different
than someone who syncd this AM (as I have not done so for about two weeks,
my ram blew up! waiting on RMA.:-(  ) The absolute lowest common denominator
that anyone has is the product they installed from - which are the various
stages..

Matt


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1616 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Todd Berman]

>> Not exactly, you are missing a very important thing your installation
>> had in common with a lot of other peoples.
>>
>> The Portage Tree.
>> Just something to think about :)

>I think you're missing something though -  my system (and your system)
also
>have gcc and python and all the neat gnu utilities like awk, and grep,
and
>bash, etc. These are all *different versions* depending on when you
>last --updated them. The portage tree is also *VERY* different based on
when
>you last ran emerge sync - it changes hourly. My portage tree is
different
>than someone who syncd this AM (as I have not done so for about two
weeks,
>my ram blew up! waiting on RMA.:-(  ) The absolute lowest common
denominator
>that anyone has is the product they installed from - which are the
various
>stages..

Its not so much that I'm missing that, and more that I am attempting to
introduce a different concept of what might quantify a Gentoo 'Release'.

If the 'Release' was based on a snapshot of the Portage Tree (with
security fixes backported of course, most likely major bug fixes as
well), then there would be something uniform and standard to release
against.

--Todd
 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4 final against rc's

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

On Friday 15 August 2003 19:47, Todd Berman wrote:
>
> Its not so much that I'm missing that, and more that I am attempting to
> introduce a different concept of what might quantify a Gentoo 'Release'.
>
> If the 'Release' was based on a snapshot of the Portage Tree (with
> security fixes backported of course, most likely major bug fixes as
> well), then there would be something uniform and standard to release
> against.
>

Well, the idea is currently that we will provide such releases with extra QA 
for especially enterprice users. Basically such a release will be a snapshot 
of the then current stable tree with necessary QA etc. This certainly does 
not mean that we will stop offering a stable and testing tree. It is actually 
expected that most developers will run testing trees, but it is an effort to 
make gentoo an option for enterprise users that want to be able to run 
updates without fear of things changing.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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