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 1F2Ahs-0002Wu-Sd for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:14:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k0QHDnus026780; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:13:49 GMT Received: from mailrelay1.tu-graz.ac.at (mailrelay.tu-graz.ac.at [129.27.2.202]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0QHBeel027528 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:11:40 GMT Received: from localhost (M2548P002.adsl.highway.telekom.at [212.183.50.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailrelay1.tu-graz.ac.at (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0QHBcZt000904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:11:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:08:06 +0100 From: Wernfried Haas To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable Message-ID: <20060126170805.GA12633@superlupo.rechner> References: <200601251933.02768.mikey@badpenguins.com> <1138284169.10589.45.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <200601260934.51644.mikey@badpenguins.com> <20060126161526.GA18707@superlupo.rechner> <200601261644.k0QGiA1R012165@gw.open-hosting.net> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200601261644.k0QGiA1R012165@gw.open-hosting.net> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel (Linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.27.10.18 X-Archives-Salt: 6f79bde0-05c6-4157-b86a-cc0b31c12ca0 X-Archives-Hash: 393c54eaf49ac715266fd89191b5d034 --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:42:04AM -0600, MIkey wrote: > 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 b= ug > 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. So you complain about a problem that is already fixed as if it still exists? I really don't get it. > 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 foru= ms > before doing what the installation handbook describes. As said at least 2 times before, why don't you file a bug report to improve the docs then? > 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. Your tests are - if i may say so - completely flawed. You disregard the fact that the basic installation time of stage 3 is much lower than the one of stage 1. Unpack the bugger, compile a kernel, that's it. Not much trouble to be expected either - differently to stage 1. Of course you may spend some time now recompiling stuff with your favourite CFLAGS and upgrading gcc, but you can do that while your system is already installed and fully productive (read: watching your favourite movie or writing mails to gentoo-dev) instead of waiting for stage 1 to finish. You don't even have to do it immedeately but whenever you think it's a good time. Furthermore problems with upgrading gcc after the install are most likely easier to solve than a bailed out stage 1. > 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. =20 Already been discussed a zillion times, please search the archives. > I am claiming that that the stage1 installation method is in fact > much easier, quicker, cleaner, and more dependable. I have still not hea= rd > a reasonable argument to refute that basic assertion. I have heard vague > claims but no quantification. It simply isn't, it's slower (see above) and more things can break. If you want hard proof, go search bugzilla, but don't make us do it for you. I have to admit i often did stage 1 installs because i found it quite funny and a good way to test new hardware. Fact is, stage 1 went away for some reasons and we'll just have to get over it. If you really care that much about Gentoo as you claim, accept the decisions of the people behind the stages and try to help improving the supported stage 3 install.=20 cheers, Wernfried --=20 Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD2QH1K/GNBBblp4ARAnN2AJ9rtVbmaOBjzCDwWSHEzlxA2/HxcACfV3Jl 6D8B1OTm//V8dkF0tfBeyuU= =nhfu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list