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 4.50) id 1Eecn5-0001bQ-KY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:22:52 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAMIKPAg004867; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:20:25 GMT Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz (gw.top-hosting.cz [81.0.254.91]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAMIGdnA017126 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:16:39 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DD99A9B68 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:16:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.top-hosting.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.top-hosting.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10069-03-2 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:16:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from NOTORCOMP (21.217.broadband4.iol.cz [85.71.217.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.top-hosting.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199029A9AA5 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:16:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:16:33 +0100 From: Jakub Moc X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <948189741.20051122191633@gentoo.org> To: Grant Goodyear Subject: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Decision to remove stage1/2 from installation documentation In-Reply-To: <20051122180349.GC16984@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> References: <20051122144745.GR12982@mail.lieber.org> <438330E1.2000804@gentoo.org> <1132672527.27288.21.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20051122180349.GC16984@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> 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; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="----------DB7F2E29FE8C9F" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at top-hosting.cz X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.391 tagged_above=-999 required=6 tests=[AWL=0.012, SPF_NEUTRAL=1.379] X-Spam-Score: 1.391 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archives-Salt: 5279513d-f616-4021-950f-b0935e2abfae X-Archives-Hash: b887121428dbab8bc141351a374337cf ------------DB7F2E29FE8C9F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0D=0A22.11.2005, 19:03:49, Grant Goodyear wrote: > I keep hearing this, isn't there a real difference between a stage 1 and a > stage 3 install inasmuch as somebody who needs (or wants) to dramatically > tailor what's in the system profile can choose to do so from a stage 1 or= 2, > but would have to remove packages after the fact if starting from a stage= 3? > I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as we document it, but it ju= st > seems that the claim that the old and new methods produce _exactly_ the s= ame > results seems to be stretching things a bit. > -g2boojum- Uhm, which reliable tools do we have for removing no-longer needed packages? emerge --depclean producing the huge red "I'm broken" warning? Or emerge --prune with similar warning in man page? Hmmm... --=20 jakub ------------DB7F2E29FE8C9F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFDg2CBhxfV/c66PZ4RAlgpAJ9pJHdHTInFcTxntBtFrv5HP2oigwCgrw2y 1kMi1SRtviRiN7UxVgU5DG0= =Elul -----END PGP MESSAGE----- ------------DB7F2E29FE8C9F-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list