From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1F2AIU-0005sG-QN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:48:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k0QGl0xe009640; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:47:00 GMT Received: from gw.open-hosting.net (gw.open-hosting.net [65.64.29.89]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0QGiLT0019454 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:44:22 GMT Received: from speedy.apps4med.net ([66.139.177.227]) by gw.open-hosting.net (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0QGiA1R012165 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:44:16 -0600 Message-Id: <200601261644.k0QGiA1R012165@gw.open-hosting.net> From: MIkey Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:42:04 -0600 References: <200601251933.02768.mikey@badpenguins.com> <1138284169.10589.45.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <200601260934.51644.mikey@badpenguins.com> <20060126161526.GA18707@superlupo.rechner> User-Agent: KNode/0.10 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88, clamav-milter version 0.87 on gw.open-hosting.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4-gr0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4-gr0 (2005-06-05) on gw.open-hosting.net X-Archives-Salt: 3e6d32bf-4163-4cb5-a4d0-d430b9682e47 X-Archives-Hash: 02ea74630d00e22a7a4f0e5a2504bc45 Wernfried Haas wrote: > You already complained about that on the forums [1] in a rather > similar thread and yet you still haven't filed a bug report about Why I explained a couple of posts further down. I could not duplicate the problem either, I think it went away in 3.4.4-r1. I don't like posting bug reports that I can't duplicate and I prefer to be able to either post a patch or suggest a solution unless it is a trivial matter. > it. I don't have the feeling this is going anywhere. I'd really > appreciate if you would at least try to help improve things. I am trying to help improve things. Do you think I just enjoy lurking around mailing lists and taking a beating? I persist because I love Gentoo, but I see some lemming-like attitudes going on around here and the users are the ones being led off of cliffs. Yes, I know it is a myth that lemmings follow each other off of cliffs. > Btw, the update was announced all over the place, including GWN, > www.gentoo.org, the forums, etc. You also get a message in the > postinstall of gcc 3.4.4 iirc. Which promptly scrolled off of the screen a few days later, never again to be found unless you know to search for it or read through all of the forums before doing what the installation handbook describes. > As for the stage 1 problems you described, this is exactly what i > already told you in the same thread. Supporting stage 1 costs extra > resources, this thread is a perfect example of it. And this is the primary point I am arguing. I keep hearing it, over and over. My testing leads me to a much different conclusion, I offered details describing why I reached my conclusions. It is the developers that decided to stop supporting the stage1 installation method, without asking users. I am asking you all to justify that decision, preferrably with facts. I am claiming that that the stage1 installation method is in fact much easier, quicker, cleaner, and more dependable. I have still not heard a reasonable argument to refute that basic assertion. I have heard vague claims but no quantification. I even went as far as posting patches to fix some of the major bugs that have gone unnoticed for, how long? Which is, in effect, me offering solutions. I have also posted proposals with patches for simple, incremental changes in portage that would make gentoo more palatable in an "enterprise" environment. So far it has been a fairly fruitless endeavor... -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list