[gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Forgive me for being naive and maybe asking a question asked before; I 
have been away from active participation on this list for quite some 
time.  I have done a lot of google searching and can not find any answer 
to the question of why is Gentoo 2006.1 the latest release?  What 
happened to the quarterly releases?  The mailing list is still active, 
but the lack of a current release seems to indicate that the Gentoo 
project is no longer truly active.

Thanks in advance,

Tom Veldhouse

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[deface]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 634 bytes --]

If you want a new release, just emerge --sync. :) 

On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 20:44 -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Forgive me for being naive and maybe asking a question asked before; I 
> have been away from active participation on this list for quite some 
> time.  I have done a lot of google searching and can not find any answer 
> to the question of why is Gentoo 2006.1 the latest release?  What 
> happened to the quarterly releases?  The mailing list is still active, 
> but the lack of a current release seems to indicate that the Gentoo 
> project is no longer truly active.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Tom Veldhouse
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1157 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[de Almeida, Valmor F.]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> If you want a new release, just emerge --sync. :)

About a month ago I --sync my systems and the available profile was
still 2006.1. Maybe 2007.0 will arrive soon if not there already.

> 
> On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 20:44 -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Forgive me for being naive and maybe asking a question asked
before;
> I
> 	have been away from active participation on this list for quite
some
> 	time.  I have done a lot of google searching and can not find
any
> answer
> 	to the question of why is Gentoo 2006.1 the latest release?
What
> 	happened to the quarterly releases?  The mailing list is still
> active,
> 	but the lack of a current release seems to indicate that the
Gentoo
> 	project is no longer truly active.
> 
> 	Thanks in advance,
> 
> 	Tom Veldhouse
> 

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Norberto Bensa]

deface wrote:
> If you want a new release, just emerge --sync. :)

Not true. 2006.1 doesn't boot on my hardware. I needed to bootstrap on an old 
box, then swap hard drives. Not very friendly.

We (I) need 2007.0 ASAP.

Regards,
Norberto



-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 4/15/07, Norberto Bensa <nbensa@gmx.net> wrote:
> deface wrote:
> > If you want a new release, just emerge --sync. :)
>
> Not true. 2006.1 doesn't boot on my hardware. I needed to bootstrap on an old
> box, then swap hard drives. Not very friendly.
>
> We (I) need 2007.0 ASAP.
>

Just get any old version (that works), install, and when its all done,
upgrade. Simple as that. I used an old 2005 install disc for an
emergency installation at a friend the other day. The only thing that
bothered me was the GCC upgrade, the rest went smoothly, as all you
need is a sync to be able to install the latest software, upgrade all
packages, use the latest profile, etc.

There's no urgency for a new release, it's really not needed because
of the way Gentoo works.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]

Norberto Bensa wrote:
> Daniel da Veiga wrote:
>   
>> On 4/15/07, Norberto Bensa <nbensa@gmx.net> wrote:
>>     
>>> Not true. 2006.1 doesn't boot on my hardware. 
>>>       
>
> ...
>
>   
>>> We (I) need 2007.0 ASAP.
>>>       
>> Just get any old version (that works),
>>     
>
> That's the point. None works. The media needs kernel 2.6.18 or better.
>
> I can use Knoppix or Ubuntu, but that's not the point. 
>
>
>   

Maybe some are not understanding the point he is making.  If I
understand correctly, he needs a newer release so that when he boots the
CD to do a install, it will see his hardware.  It would appear that the
2006 series is not seeing some hardware, whatever that is, and he needs
a newer version to get it to see his hardware to do the install.  I
don't think he is talking about after the install but trying to start
the install while booted from the CD.

OP, am I getting this right?  That's the way I took it anyway.  Gosh it
is hard to explain in print.  No wonder it takes so long to write a
book.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2037 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:37:54 -0500
Dale <dalek@exceedtech.net> escribió:

> Norberto Bensa wrote:
> > Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> > I can use Knoppix or Ubuntu, but that's not the point. 
> 
> Maybe some are not understanding the point he is making.  If I
> understand correctly, he needs a newer release so that when he boots
> the CD to do a install, it will see his hardware.  It would appear
> that the 2006 series is not seeing some hardware, whatever that is,
> and he needs a newer version to get it to see his hardware to do the
> install.  I don't think he is talking about after the install but
> trying to start the install while booted from the CD.

Now I understand it and I think it is a fair point, still, I wouldn't
worry at all about that because, even being besides the point, I can
use an alternative cd to boot.

I am sure that if the 2007.0 releases hasn't happened yet, it is just
because there are more important things to work on.

--Jesús Guerrero
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1969 bytes --]

Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> El Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:37:54 -0500
> Dale <dalek@exceedtech.net> escribió:
>
>   
>> Norberto Bensa wrote:
>>     
>>> Daniel da Veiga wrote:
>>> I can use Knoppix or Ubuntu, but that's not the point. 
>>>       
>> Maybe some are not understanding the point he is making.  If I
>> understand correctly, he needs a newer release so that when he boots
>> the CD to do a install, it will see his hardware.  It would appear
>> that the 2006 series is not seeing some hardware, whatever that is,
>> and he needs a newer version to get it to see his hardware to do the
>> install.  I don't think he is talking about after the install but
>> trying to start the install while booted from the CD.
>>     
>
> Now I understand it and I think it is a fair point, still, I wouldn't
> worry at all about that because, even being besides the point, I can
> use an alternative cd to boot.
>
> I am sure that if the 2007.0 releases hasn't happened yet, it is just
> because there are more important things to work on.
>
> --Jesús Guerrero
>   

But as someone else just posted, he has two computers, one being a Dell,
that will not boot the 2006 CD so it is a really good point.  Booting
Knopix or something to install Gentoo may not be difficult if you only
have one CD drive.  So, having a up to date install CD is really a good
idea.  How are people going to install if they can't get stuff to work
so they can?

I know they are busy, and of late is not being involved in a flame fest
either, but it is something that has to be done nevertheless.

I see the point pretty clear, from both sides.  I'm sure they don't want
to rush a release and have serious problems with it but at the same
time, people are coming up with new hardware and people need them to
work so they can install Gentoo.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2681 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Hamie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]

On Sunday 15 April 2007 07:37, Dale wrote:
> Norberto Bensa wrote:
> > Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> >> On 4/15/07, Norberto Bensa <nbensa@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>> Not true. 2006.1 doesn't boot on my hardware.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> We (I) need 2007.0 ASAP.
> >>
> >> Just get any old version (that works),
> >
> > That's the point. None works. The media needs kernel 2.6.18 or better.
> >
> > I can use Knoppix or Ubuntu, but that's not the point.
>
> Maybe some are not understanding the point he is making.  If I
> understand correctly, he needs a newer release so that when he boots the
> CD to do a install, it will see his hardware.  It would appear that the

The same thing happens on my laptop as well (Thinkpad Z61m, core2Duo). The 
Gentoo boot disks just don't have the drivers. I had to boot a Knoppix disk, 
install that, then do gentoo as a chroot... Which was a REAL nightmare 
because the knoppix was 32bit & I wanted a 64-bit install (It took messing 
around with a kernel from a ~amd64 desktop manually copied over as well 
before I could get gentoo installed correctly).

I'd hate to have to try & rebuild...

H

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Rumen Yotov]

Hi,
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:52:42 +0100
Hamie <hamish@travellingkiwi.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 15 April 2007 07:37, Dale wrote:
> > Norberto Bensa wrote:
> > > Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> > >> On 4/15/07, Norberto Bensa <nbensa@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >>> Not true. 2006.1 doesn't boot on my hardware.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>> We (I) need 2007.0 ASAP.
> > >>
> > >> Just get any old version (that works),
> > >
> > > That's the point. None works. The media needs kernel 2.6.18 or
> > > better.
> > >
> > > I can use Knoppix or Ubuntu, but that's not the point.
> >
> > Maybe some are not understanding the point he is making.  If I
> > understand correctly, he needs a newer release so that when he
> > boots the CD to do a install, it will see his hardware.  It would
> > appear that the
> 
> The same thing happens on my laptop as well (Thinkpad Z61m,
> core2Duo). The Gentoo boot disks just don't have the drivers. I had
> to boot a Knoppix disk, install that, then do gentoo as a chroot...
> Which was a REAL nightmare because the knoppix was 32bit & I wanted a
> 64-bit install (It took messing around with a kernel from a ~amd64
> desktop manually copied over as well before I could get gentoo
> installed correctly).
> 
> H
Don't want to seem i recommend it, but you can try the Sabayon-miniCD
for a new install.
Don't know how actual the kernel/userspace are but in all cases newer
then 2006.1.
It's a Gentoo-based (slightly modified) distro.
A good thing is it updates it's install-CDs quite often.
HTH. Rumen
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Hamie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 08:41, Rumen Yotov wrote:
> Hi,

[deleted]

> > H
>
> Don't want to seem i recommend it, but you can try the Sabayon-miniCD
> for a new install.
> Don't know how actual the kernel/userspace are but in all cases newer
> then 2006.1.
> It's a Gentoo-based (slightly modified) distro.
> A good thing is it updates it's install-CDs quite often.

Hey thanks I'd never heard of it I'll give it a go

regards
  Hamish

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Walker]

Hamie wrote:
> Hey thanks I'd never heard of it I'll give it a go
>
>   

If you want to install Sabayon and stay with it without ever updating 
anything until the next Sabayon release, fine - but don't ever think 
that Sabayon is a quick and easy way to a working Gentoo system, it most 
certainly isn't. A simple "emerge -uavD world" will fail without hours 
of work.


Be lucky,

Neil


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[fire-eyes]

Neil Walker wrote:

> Be lucky,
> 
> Neil

This is completely offtopic. But "Be lucky" made me think of the movie 
Demolition man, is this where you got it? In that case, the reply to 
that line was amusing :P

</offtopic>
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Walker]

fire-eyes wrote:
> Neil Walker wrote:
>
>> Be lucky,
>>
>> Neil
>
> This is completely offtopic. But "Be lucky" made me think of the movie 
> Demolition man, is this where you got it? In that case, the reply to 
> that line was amusing :P
>
> </offtopic>

I've been using it since the early days of Fidonet. I don't think 
Demolition Man was around then. ;)


Be lucky,

Neil

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Jarry]

Norberto Bensa wrote:

>> Just get any old version (that works),
> That's the point. None works. The media needs kernel 2.6.18 or better.

I had the similar experience: tried to install 2006.1 on new mobo,
but sata controller could not be recognised (some via chpiset iirc).

Had to buy extra some p-ata drive, install gentoo on it,
update kernel, then sata-drive got recognised, chroot to
new sata-drive, and finally install gentoo on it once again.
Tedious work...

Jarry

-- 
_______________________________________________________________
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Crayon]

On Sunday 15 April 2007 15:31, Jarry wrote:

> I had the similar experience: tried to install 2006.1 on new mobo,
> but sata controller could not be recognised (some via chpiset iirc).

Ditto

> Had to buy extra some p-ata drive, install gentoo on it,
> update kernel, then sata-drive got recognised, chroot to
> new sata-drive, and finally install gentoo on it once again.
> Tedious work...

As someone already pointed out, boot using any other livecd that 
recognises the controller, then follow the usual gentoo install 
instructions, remembering to config kernel for your sata controller.

I had to do this to an Asus motherboard a little while back - yes it was 
frustrating at the time because initially I had no idea why my controller 
wasn't recognised.

-- 
Crayon
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 903 bytes --]

Crayon wrote:
>
>
> As someone already pointed out, boot using any other livecd that 
> recognises the controller, then follow the usual gentoo install 
> instructions, remembering to config kernel for your sata controller.
>
> I had to do this to an Asus motherboard a little while back - yes it was 
> frustrating at the time because initially I had no idea why my controller 
> wasn't recognised.
>
>   

But if your system has only one CD and not enough memory to load in
cache, you're in a pickle.

They need to strike a balance somewhere.  Problem is, they come out with
new hardware so fast nowadays.  It's hard for anybody to keep up to date
completely.  I suspect Gentoo does better than most as far as a distro
is concerned, not counting CD based things like Knoppix or something.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1444 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Crayon]

On Monday 16 April 2007 16:05, Dale wrote:

> But if your system has only one CD and not enough memory to load in
> cache, you're in a pickle.

I'm not sure why that would be a problem? My system only had one cdrom and 
I managed fine :)

-- 
Crayon
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Nick Rout]

On Mon, April 16, 2007 11:48 pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> To install gentoo, the minimum you require is a running kernel, a
> network connection and a shell session. From there you chroot into the
> directory that is going to become your /, unpack a portage tree and
> binaries copies of some important apps, then emerge the rest.
>
> You don't have to use a gentoo CD for that, I've done it from a Red Hat
> rescue disk, a Knoppix disk and from a working Mandrake install. The
> gentoo CD does make life easier though if you run into trouble, as
> everything you will need will be on the disk and you don't have to hunt
> for stuff.

You do need a working chroot, which can be a problem on some rescue
floppies (if you are reduced to floppies).



-- 
Nick Rout

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[b.n.]

Dale ha scritto:
>  Me, 
> I'd go back to Mandrake until a new release comes out.

As a former Mandraker:
for $DEITY's sake, not Mandrake! Not after Gentoo. Debian, Kubuntu, even 
Slack...but not Mandrake! :)

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dale]

b.n. wrote:
> Dale ha scritto:
>>  Me, I'd go back to Mandrake until a new release comes out.
>
> As a former Mandraker:
> for $DEITY's sake, not Mandrake! Not after Gentoo. Debian, Kubuntu,
> even Slack...but not Mandrake! :)
>
> m.

Well, allow me to clarify a bit.  I wouldn't want you to have a heart
attack and die on us.  ;-)  I would only do that until I could get a new
CD or could get access to DSL or something faster than what I have now. 
I have a 26K connection right now.  Let's not discuss OOo.  O_O

It would be a last resort too.  I'm not a Mandriva lover either.  I do
have a 10.0 set of CDs though.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Jerry McBride]

On Monday 16 April 2007 07:02:09 pm Dale wrote:
> b.n. wrote:
> > Dale ha scritto:
> >>  Me, I'd go back to Mandrake until a new release comes out.
> >
> > As a former Mandraker:
> > for $DEITY's sake, not Mandrake! Not after Gentoo. Debian, Kubuntu,
> > even Slack...but not Mandrake! :)
> >
> > m.
>
> Well, allow me to clarify a bit.  I wouldn't want you to have a heart
> attack and die on us.  ;-)  I would only do that until I could get a new
> CD or could get access to DSL or something faster than what I have now.
> I have a 26K connection right now.  Let's not discuss OOo.  O_O
>

Hi Dale...

Umm... where do you live? I'm in New Jersey... If you are state side, I'm 
willing to burn a few Gentoo cd's or dvd's for you if you wish. Won't cost 
you a dime.

Just email me if you are interested.

--

Jerry McBride
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2641 bytes --]

Jerry McBride wrote:
>
> Hi Dale...
>
> Umm... where do you live? I'm in New Jersey... If you are state side, I'm 
> willing to burn a few Gentoo cd's or dvd's for you if you wish. Won't cost 
> you a dime.
>
> Just email me if you are interested.
>
> --
>
> Jerry McBride
>   

Well, everything is good to go over here right now.  My hard drives are
only about 3 years old.  I do have a backup of portage and a snapshot on
some CDs.  I do this when a big upgrade like KDE comes out.  I also have
a UPS connected and a surge protector as well.  Short of me spilling tea
in my rig I should be OK.  I'm not going to say I am completely safe
though.  If I say that, I will find a hole in my plan.  :-(

I do see the OPs point though.  If I had to install and had no back-ups
at all, it would be tough.  I have the latest CD, 2006.1 I think, that
is available but look at all the updates that have come out since then. 
It would be a huge download and would take me over a week, if not
longer.  Plus, I can't connect to the net from the CD.

As to where I live, I live about half way between Columbus and West
Point MS.  I'm almost to the very end of the phone line and the big
telephone box is about 20 years old.  As a matter fact, when they last
replaced that box, we got off of party lines.  How's that for old?  They
were due to replace the box a couple years ago but hurricane Dennis and
Katrina hit the coast and all the phone people went south, as a
geographical direction, not a figure of speech.  That would have got us
DSL out here and I would have been on it with both feet, firmly. 

I do plan to get a DVD burner soon.  If I do that, I plan to do complete
backups then, the whole thing, not just a snapshot and distfiles.  If
you follow the myspace link below, you may understand why I have not
done so already.  My blog entries get a lot of reads.  Divorces can be
nasty.  May have a new blog entry in the next few days, waiting on the
call from a lawyer.

Thanks for the offer.  If something did happen, I do have a plan.  I
have not tested it but I certainly hope it will work if I have to test
it.  May keep that offer in mind though.  < Dale make a note of the
email address >  I would gladly pay the costs of the media and mailing
at least.  Paypal comes to mind to take care of that.  ;-)

Jeez, I hadn't had a offer to help like that in a while.  I thought I
was the only one that would do something like that.  Your name is
familiar too.  Where I know you from is unclear but we have spoke
before, some where.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3343 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dan Farrell]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:14:07 -0300
Norberto Bensa <nbensa@gmx.net> wrote:

> deface wrote:
> > If you want a new release, just emerge --sync. :)
> 
> Not true. 2006.1 doesn't boot on my hardware. I needed to bootstrap
> on an old box, then swap hard drives. Not very friendly.
> 
> We (I) need 2007.0 ASAP.
> 
> Regards,
> Norberto

As has been said, the installation CD does not need to be specifically
a Gentoo cd, although it seems worth repeating that it _does_ have to
support the same architecture.  This isn't usually a big deal unless a
chip supports multiple architectures, ie x86_64 can run x86 code.  But
it can't run both at once unless it has the right libs and - gasp -
livecd's don't.  

Some people on the gentoo forums also updated a disk image a little
so that they could boot it on their nice new computers.  You should be
able to find it without too much difficulty on the forums.  

It's definitely a good thing to have the official releases come out
when ready.  Buggy discs are a lot worse publicity than being behind
schedule.  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Ryan Sims]

On 4/16/07, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 02:14:07 -0300
> Norberto Bensa <nbensa@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > deface wrote:
> > > If you want a new release, just emerge --sync. :)
> >
> > Not true. 2006.1 doesn't boot on my hardware. I needed to bootstrap
> > on an old box, then swap hard drives. Not very friendly.
> >
> > We (I) need 2007.0 ASAP.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Norberto
>
> As has been said, the installation CD does not need to be specifically
> a Gentoo cd, although it seems worth repeating that it _does_ have to
> support the same architecture.  This isn't usually a big deal unless a
> chip supports multiple architectures, ie x86_64 can run x86 code.  But
> it can't run both at once unless it has the right libs and - gasp -
> livecd's don't.
>
> Some people on the gentoo forums also updated a disk image a little
> so that they could boot it on their nice new computers.  You should be
> able to find it without too much difficulty on the forums.

http://www.kernel-of-truth.net/downloads_kOT.html

I used it to get things up and running amd64 with the new JMicron
drivers, worked like a charm (ot: in stark contrast to the windows
install, which eventually required a *floppy* to load
drivers...slackware flashbacks ;) ).

If you're worried about compatibility with a new rig, searching the
forums for hardware (Asus P5B in my case) often turns up the poor
souls who found bugs the hard way, allowing cowards like me to benefit
from their hard work.


-- 
Ryan W Sims
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Andrey Gerasimenko]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:10:27 +0400, Ryan Sims <rwsims@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>> As has been said, the installation CD does not need to be specifically
>> a Gentoo cd, although it seems worth repeating that it _does_ have to
>> support the same architecture. ...
>
> http://www.kernel-of-truth.net/downloads_kOT.html
>

I agree that "the installation CD does not need to be specifically a  
Gentoo cd", but I believe that it should be always possible to use it for  
installation, even when workarounds are available. The only argument that  
explains why it is currently not the fact is the inability to sustain  
quarterly release schedule. It looks like everybody, me too, agrees that  
it is a very good reason to switch to semi-annual releases, but  please  
note that the very fact that quarterly releases were started is a proof  
that they are desirable.

I guess the problem here is that the Gentoo Minimal Installation CD  
release is linked to the Gentoo Installer LiveCD release and to the Gentoo  
Reference Platform release. If the minimal CD is released quarterly or,  
better, whenever new hardware hits the shelves, the experience of new  
Gentoo users will be better.

-- 
Andrei Gerasimenko
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dale]

Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
>
> I agree that "the installation CD does not need to be specifically a
> Gentoo cd", but I believe that it should be always possible to use it
> for installation, even when workarounds are available. The only
> argument that explains why it is currently not the fact is the
> inability to sustain quarterly release schedule. It looks like
> everybody, me too, agrees that it is a very good reason to switch to
> semi-annual releases, but  please note that the very fact that
> quarterly releases were started is a proof that they are desirable.
>
> I guess the problem here is that the Gentoo Minimal Installation CD
> release is linked to the Gentoo Installer LiveCD release and to the
> Gentoo Reference Platform release. If the minimal CD is released
> quarterly or, better, whenever new hardware hits the shelves, the
> experience of new Gentoo users will be better.
>
> --Andrei Gerasimenko
> --gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>

Even though I would like to see semi-annual releases, I can also
understand the effort that has to go into making it happen.  You would
have to catch everything just right to make it worthwhile.  Example, it
is time for a new release and gcc is almost ready to be marked stable. 
Do you do the release anyway or wait until gcc is stable?  What if it is
not as stable as people think and it is already released before that is
found out?  That would not be good for Gentoo either.

Add in that some new piece of hardware is coming out and the drivers are
being worked on but not yet finished.  Then what?  What if the packages
such as gcc, KDE, Gnome and other important ones and the newer hardware
drivers never sync up exactly right?  Who would decide what is more
important, hardware drivers or packages?

I can see this from both sides.  Having a reasonably up to date install
CD would be nice but it would take some effort and planning to get it
there.  I suspect the new Proctors would be all over Gentoo-dev.  LOL 
That could turn into a really long discussion and it would never end
really.  By the time one is released it would be time to start planning
the next and may even overlap a lot too.

I'm glad I'm a lowly user and not a dev.  :-)

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Andrey Gerasimenko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:50:23 +0400, Dale <dalek@exceedtech.net> wrote:

> Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
>>
>> I agree that "the installation CD does not need to be specifically a
>> Gentoo cd", but I believe that it should be always possible to use it
>> for installation, even when workarounds are available. The only
>> argument that explains why it is currently not the fact is the
>> inability to sustain quarterly release schedule. It looks like
>> everybody, me too, agrees that it is a very good reason to switch to
>> semi-annual releases, but  please note that the very fact that
>> quarterly releases were started is a proof that they are desirable.
>>
>> I guess the problem here is that the Gentoo Minimal Installation CD
>> release is linked to the Gentoo Installer LiveCD release and to the
>> Gentoo Reference Platform release. If the minimal CD is released
>> quarterly or, better, whenever new hardware hits the shelves, the
>> experience of new Gentoo users will be better.
>>
>> --Andrei Gerasimenko
>> --gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>>
>
> Even though I would like to see semi-annual releases, I can also
> understand the effort that has to go into making it happen.  You would
> have to catch everything just right to make it worthwhile.  Example, it
> is time for a new release and gcc is almost ready to be marked stable.
> Do you do the release anyway or wait until gcc is stable?  What if it is
> not as stable as people think and it is already released before that is
> found out?  That would not be good for Gentoo either.
>
> Add in that some new piece of hardware is coming out and the drivers are
> being worked on but not yet finished.  Then what?  What if the packages
> such as gcc, KDE, Gnome and other important ones and the newer hardware
> drivers never sync up exactly right?  Who would decide what is more
> important, hardware drivers or packages?
>
> I can see this from both sides.  Having a reasonably up to date install
> CD would be nice but it would take some effort and planning to get it
> there.  I suspect the new Proctors would be all over Gentoo-dev.  LOL
> That could turn into a really long discussion and it would never end
> really.  By the time one is released it would be time to start planning
> the next and may even overlap a lot too.
>
> I'm glad I'm a lowly user and not a dev.  :-)
>
> Dale
>

Sorry for the long quote, it all looks equally relevant (or irrelevant).

There should be some problem with my English. I understand and agree with  
your arguments and even, I hope, have explained that in the original post.  
However, they are valid for the Gentoo Installer LiveCD and the Reference  
Platform only. The Gentoo Minimal Installation CD has much less packages  
and it is much easier to update it.

I do not see how it is hard to create a minimal installation CD image  
every time new hardware support is added into the kernel, or new gcc  
version goes stable, or new portage version goes stable. Whether this is  
desirable or quarterly releases are sufficient is another question, since  
too many versions may confuse new users.

The problem is that currently the minimal CD, the Live CD, and the  
Reference Platform are released simultaneously. I guess the minimal CD  
should be numbered like 2006.1, 2006.1.u1, 2006.1.u2, 2007.0.p1,  
2007.0.p2, 2007.0, 2007.0.u1 and so on and released as necessary between  
full releases.

I feel it is harder to fix the relevant Handbook and web site entries and,  
possibly, ensure that it gets to all the mirrors than to prepare the new  
CD image.


-- 
Andrei Gerasimenko
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1027 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:26:23 +0400, Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:

> I do not see how it is hard to create a minimal installation CD image  
> every time new hardware support is added into the kernel,

Then do it. Open source gives you the opportunity to make things happen
yourself instead of whining that others won't do it. The build tools are
in portage, so there's nothing stopping anyone from producing an updated
minimal install CD, as has already been posted to the forums.

> or new gcc  
> version goes stable, or new portage version goes stable.

These are irrelevant. As long as the CD boots, recognises your core
hardware - which really comes down to disk controllers and network
interfaces - and installs a working system, the rest can be updated
post-install.

A major GCC update is the exception to this rule, but that is precisely
the sort of thing that needs extensive testing on a range of platforms
rather than a rushed release.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Honk if you love peace and quiet.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> A major GCC update is the exception to this rule, but that is precisely
> the sort of thing that needs extensive testing on a range of platforms
> rather than a rushed release.
>
>   

That was what I was referring too.  It would be time consuming to
install then turn right around and have to upgrade gcc and do a emerge
-e world etc etc etc.

Again, I see that this can be a difficult thing to balance and it would
not be easy to keep it balanced. 

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

-- 
www.myspace.com/-remove-me-dalek1967

Copy n paste then remove the -remove-me- part.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 761 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 05:33:18 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > A major GCC update is the exception to this rule, but that is
> > precisely the sort of thing that needs extensive testing on a range
> > of platforms rather than a rushed release.

> That was what I was referring too.  It would be time consuming to
> install then turn right around and have to upgrade gcc and do a emerge
> -e world etc etc etc.

The time taken is irrelevant, because the computer is still usable while
the emerge is running in the background. The important point is that
everything builds with the new GCC on all supported platforms. That's the
sort of thing that takes the time.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Andrey Gerasimenko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:08:49 +0400, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>  
wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:26:23 +0400, Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
>
>> I do not see how it is hard to create a minimal installation CD image
>> every time new hardware support is added into the kernel,
>
> Then do it. Open source gives you the opportunity to make things happen
> yourself instead of whining that others won't do it. The build tools are
> in portage, so there's nothing stopping anyone from producing an updated
> minimal install CD, as has already been posted to the forums.
>

Sorry, where do you see whining? Even if I say that if whatever posted to  
forums is good then it should go to the official Gentoo site, this would  
not be whining.

Once again, there should be some problem with my English. It is official  
Gentoo release policy to have minimal, live, and platform releases in  
sync. Posting a new image to forums is not that tightly related to  
policies. This very thread, as explained in my post, is just one reason to  
change the policy.

I agree that if I become a Gentoo developer and use developer mailing  
lists then the chances for the change are better.

>> or new gcc
>> version goes stable, or new portage version goes stable.
>
> These are irrelevant. As long as the CD boots, recognises your core
> hardware - which really comes down to disk controllers and network
> interfaces - and installs a working system, the rest can be updated
> post-install.
>

No, GCC and portage are relevant. The fact that the installation process  
succeeds does not help much when a new user, just after downloading the  
latest and greatest, has to recompile something as basic and huge as GCC  
or just interrupt the install getting the scary message "you better do  
nothing until you upgrade Portage".

> A major GCC update is the exception to this rule, but that is precisely
> the sort of thing that needs extensive testing on a range of platforms
> rather than a rushed release.
>
>

Just in case you already deleted my post, I recommend new minimal CD  
release each time a new GCC version, major or not, goes stable. What extra  
testing does a stable version need?

-- 
Andrei Gerasimenko
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3566 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:30:14 +0400, Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:

> >> I do not see how it is hard to create a minimal installation CD image
> >> every time new hardware support is added into the kernel,
> >
> > Then do it. Open source gives you the opportunity to make things
> > happen yourself instead of whining that others won't do it. The build
> > tools are in portage, so there's nothing stopping anyone from
> > producing an updated minimal install CD, as has already been posted
> > to the forums.
> >
> 
> Sorry, where do you see whining?

Sorry, that came across as rather harsh. It was intended as a general
comment, not a criticism of you.

> Even if I say that if whatever posted
> to forums is good then it should go to the official Gentoo site, this
> would not be whining.

No, but it would not be practical either, because an official release
needs a lot more testing.

> Once again, there should be some problem with my English. It is
> official Gentoo release policy to have minimal, live, and platform
> releases in sync. Posting a new image to forums is not that tightly
> related to policies.

No it's not, and I never suggested it was. As an Open Source project,
ANYONE can build a new, unofficial image that supports brand new
hardware. They don't need to wait for the full releng cycle of testing on
all packages.

> This very thread, as explained in my post, is just
> one reason to change the policy.

Then you should file a bug suggesting this.

> >> or new gcc
> >> version goes stable, or new portage version goes stable.
> >
> > These are irrelevant. As long as the CD boots, recognises your core
> > hardware - which really comes down to disk controllers and network
> > interfaces - and installs a working system, the rest can be updated
> > post-install.
> >
> 
> No, GCC and portage are relevant. The fact that the installation
> process succeeds does not help much when a new user, just after
> downloading the latest and greatest, has to recompile something as
> basic and huge as GCC or just interrupt the install getting the scary
> message "you better do nothing until you upgrade Portage".

Whatever is included, something big will have a new version by the time
the full install has been comprehensively tested on all supported
platforms and put on the mirrors for a week. A Gentoo install is supposed
to give you a working system that is a starting point, not an end in
itself.

The only time a new install disc is really necessary is when the old one
doesn't support your hardware.

> > A major GCC update is the exception to this rule, but that is
> > precisely the sort of thing that needs extensive testing on a range
> > of platforms rather than a rushed release.

> Just in case you already deleted my post, I recommend new minimal CD  
> release each time a new GCC version, major or not, goes stable.

I still maintain that minor GCC upgrades are not an issue, kernel
upgrades are far more relevant as that is where most hardware support
takes place. Why do you consider a GCC upgrade such a big deal? After a
Stage 3 install, you are likely to want to do an emerge -e world anyway,
to apply your customisations, so GCC will probably be recompiled anyway.
As long as the latest stable version is not incompatible with the CD,
what's the big deal?

> What extra testing does a stable version need?

To ensure that everything works as a cohesive whole.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Drew]

> > Once again, there should be some problem with my English. It is
> > official Gentoo release policy to have minimal, live, and platform
> > releases in sync. Posting a new image to forums is not that tightly
> > related to policies.
>
> No it's not, and I never suggested it was. As an Open Source project,
> ANYONE can build a new, unofficial image that supports brand new
> hardware. They don't need to wait for the full releng cycle of testing on
> all packages.

Perhaps.

But as I discovered late last year, being able to build an image that
supports your hardware is kinda impossible when you can't even install
Gentoo onto it in the first place using the images available.

Who'd have thought a Promise SATA300 TX4 would be unsupported in 2006.1?


-Drew
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Hans-Werner Hilse]

Hi,

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:41:34 -0700 Drew <drew.kay@gmail.com> wrote:

> Who'd have thought a Promise SATA300 TX4 would be unsupported in
> 2006.1?

In all honesty, it's probably not absolutely "unsupported". Switch your
SATA controller to compatibility mode in BIOS, don't care for DMA, and
it will probably happily work.

I never checked this, though, since I've never installed Gentoo using a
Gentoo boot CD.

-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[chris]

On 4/18/07, Drew <drew.kay@gmail.com> wrote:

> Who'd have thought a Promise SATA300 TX4 would be unsupported in 2006.1?
>

I'm running 2006.1 and my Promise SATA300TX4 worked fine on a new
install.  The kernel I started on was: 2.6.17-r8.   I never changed
anything in my BIOS or on teh controller itself.  Just worked (tm). :)

I just chose the Promise modules for SATA to install into the kernel
(not as a module).

I had 3 of them in my system running 12 drives till I switched 2 out
for a 8 port card (Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8).

I'm currently on 2.6.19-r5.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Jerry McBride]

On Thursday 19 April 2007 12:55:57 am chris wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Drew <drew.kay@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Who'd have thought a Promise SATA300 TX4 would be unsupported in 2006.1?
>
> I'm running 2006.1 and my Promise SATA300TX4 worked fine on a new
> install.  The kernel I started on was: 2.6.17-r8.   I never changed
> anything in my BIOS or on teh controller itself.  Just worked (tm). :)
>
> I just chose the Promise modules for SATA to install into the kernel
> (not as a module).
>
> I had 3 of them in my system running 12 drives till I switched 2 out
> for a 8 port card (Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8).
>

Hey Chris....

Would you take the time and post what motherboard the Supermicro is plugged 
into and whether you are running 32bit or 64bit Gentoo?

Thank you, in advance.


-- 


Jerry McBride
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[chris]

On 4/19/07, Jerry McBride <mcbrides9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> Hey Chris....
>
> Would you take the time and post what motherboard the Supermicro is plugged
> into and whether you are running 32bit or 64bit Gentoo?
>
> Thank you, in advance.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Jerry McBride
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>

Sure thing. :)

Mobo: Asus P4S800-MX

1x Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 (replaced 2x Promise SATA300TX4)
1x Promise SATA300TX4

The Supermicro is hooked into just a normal PCI slot, not PCI-X.  I'm
sure there is a performance hit but I can't notice it if there is.
The 8 drives hooked to it are hooked via 2 multilane cables to an
external enclosure.  The Promise is driving 4 drives in the server
itself.   This is the cable kit I bought 2 of:
http://www.cooldrives.com/multilane-adapter-kit.html

Gentoo is installed on a small 20g drive (hda).

I'm running a 32bit Gentoo.  I upgraded from 2.6.17-r8 to 2.6.19-r5.
The reason was .19 had the Marvel SATA driver in it.  mv_sata or
sata_mv, I can't remember offhand the right way to type it.  I just
compiled (with genkernel) the Marvel driver into the kernel, and
booted up the box with the Supermicro installed and my Raid5 array on
those 8 disks was back up with no issue.   I originally built the
server with the 3 Promise cards in there.  when I found out about the
Supermicro card, I looked in my config for .17 and did off hand see a
Marvel driver but it was in the .19 one so I upgraded.

This frees up a PCI slot so I can put in a gigabit nic since the built
on nic is only 10/100.  :)

I know of others that are running uber raid servers with multiple of
those Supermicro cards installed in a system.  I know of at least 1
person on some boards I peruse that is running with 30 drives w/ 4 of
them in a box.   But I don't think he's running Gentoo. :(

Promise as a PCI-X card as well but it won't work in a normal PCI slot
like the Supermicro one will.  Plus the Promise card is more
expensive.

# lspci
<snip>
00:09.0 Mass storage controller: Promise Technology, Inc. PDC40718
(SATA 300 TX4) (rev 02)
00:0a.0 SCSI storage controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd.
MV88SX6081 8-port SATA II PCI-X Controller (rev 09)


Hope this helps.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[William Kenworthy]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 11:08 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
...
> These are irrelevant. As long as the CD boots, recognises your core
> hardware - which really comes down to disk controllers and network
> interfaces - and installs a working system, the rest can be updated
> post-install.

Unfortunately, 2006.1 wont even boot with increasing amounts of hardware
- and increasingly other distros LiveCD's do.  My last one was a catch
22 - earlier LiveCD's would boot, but no drivers for the network card,
and therefore no easy way to install.  (no floppy etc access as well :(
2006.1 doesnt fully boot as it loses the cdrom partway through the boot
process.

I ended up using the soon to be superseeded (if it isnt already) FC6
livecd - a pain.

BillK


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Walker]

Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
> I do not see how it is hard to create a minimal installation CD image 
> every time new hardware support is added into the kernel, or new gcc 
> version goes stable, or new portage version goes stable. 

How is any of that relevant to the minimal install CD? GGC, Portage, 
etc. come from the stage tarball you install. All the install CD does is 
boot the system - you can use any livecd for that. What is really 
needed, is updated stages.


Be lucky,

Neil

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Andrey Gerasimenko]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:11:21 +0400, Neil Walker <neil@ep.mine.nu> wrote:

> Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:
>> I do not see how it is hard to create a minimal installation CD image  
>> every time new hardware support is added into the kernel, or new gcc  
>> version goes stable, or new portage version goes stable.
>
> How is any of that relevant to the minimal install CD? GGC, Portage,  
> etc. come from the stage tarball you install. All the install CD does is  
> boot the system - you can use any livecd for that. What is really  
> needed, is updated stages.
>

Exactly. I linked GCC and Portage to the minimal CD because all the docs  
and the numbering scheme itself link the stages file with the minimal CD  
image. If the minimal CD is  
gentoo/releases/x86/2006.1/installcd/install-x86-minimal-2006.1.iso, then  
the stage is gentoo/releases/x86/2006.1/stages/stage3-i686-2006.1.tar.bz2.

I cannot tell if it is easier to brake this 1 to 1 relationship and modify  
the docs or to just rename the CD image to the new version if there are no  
changes to it.

I agree that any livecd can be used to boot the system (I used Knoppix).  
Thus it is possible to change the minimal CD numbering radically, for  
example, base it on the kernel number since it normally increases as new  
hardware support is added to Linux. The CD will be  
install-x86-minimal-2.6.21-rc6.iso, and the stages will be numbered and  
updated independently.

I do not know if this will cause problems with the live CD or not.

-- 
Andrei Gerasimenko
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:26:20 +0400, Andrey Gerasimenko wrote:

> It looks like everybody, me too, agrees that  
> it is a very good reason to switch to semi-annual releases, but
> please note that the very fact that quarterly releases were started is
> a proof that they are desirable.

All it proves is that releng thought it was a good idea at the time,
until they tried to achieve it :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If at first you don't succeed, you'll get a lot of free advice from
folks who didn't succeed either.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Sonntag, 15. April 2007, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> The mailing list is still active,
> but the lack of a current release seems to indicate that the Gentoo
> project is no longer truly active.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tom Veldhouse

a) gentoo is not about releases. 

b) the 1.4 release took ages.

c) the real indicator of activity is the amount of changes in the portage 
tree. And surprise! There is the usual high amount of updated, removed or new 
ebuilds.

d) if you want more releases, become a dev and join rel-eng.

e) if you look here you'll see that the gentoo-dev ml is as active as always 
in the last couple of years.
http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&r=1&w=2
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Sonntag, 15. April 2007, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>   
>> The mailing list is still active,
>> but the lack of a current release seems to indicate that the Gentoo
>> project is no longer truly active.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Tom Veldhouse
>>     
>
> a) gentoo is not about releases. 
>   
I understand that.  BUT ... it was announced long ago that there was a 
quarterly release plan starting in 2005.  It was followed for only one year?
> b) the 1.4 release took ages.
>   
Indeed ... and then came the apparently aborted plan to do quarterly 
releases.
> c) the real indicator of activity is the amount of changes in the portage 
> tree. And surprise! There is the usual high amount of updated, removed or new 
> ebuilds.
>   
Yes, not an indicator of quality or progress, just commits.
> d) if you want more releases, become a dev and join rel-eng.
>   
I don't necessarily want more releases.  I DO want to know what happened 
to the release schedule.
> e) if you look here you'll see that the gentoo-dev ml is as active as always 
> in the last couple of years.
> http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&r=1&w=2
>   
Good to hear.

Tom Veldhouse


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2221 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

Hello Thomas T. Veldhouse,

> > a) gentoo is not about releases. 
> >     
> I understand that.  BUT ... it was announced long ago that there was a 
> quarterly release plan starting in 2005.  It was followed for only one
> year?

That's right. It was quickly discovered that forcing a quarterly release
schedule on releng was impractical, so they switched to bi-annual
releases from 2006. 2007.0 was originally scheduled for release in
February, but the profile has only just hit the portage tree. The actual
release should not be too far off now.

Aside from the new hardware situation, there is another reason for
release, especially on schedule ones, publicity. Magazines like to
include new releases on their cover discs and want to carry reviews of
new releases (not betas). I was asked to review 2007.0 three months ago,
based on the original release schedule, I'm still waiting to do so. That
is lost positive publicity for Gentoo, at a time when it is getting
plenty of publicity and precious little of it positive.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't put all your hypes in one home page.

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

[gentoo-user] Re: Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[»Q«]

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net> wrote:

> why is Gentoo 2006.1 the latest release?  

The 2007.0 media should be ready RSN.  It hasn't been ready sooner due
mainly to security fixes for several major packages.

> What happened to the quarterly releases?

The time frame was too short to get proper testing done on releases, so
they switched to bi-annual.

-- 
»Q«

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is the latest release 2006.1?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:44:56 -0500
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net> escribió:

> Forgive me for being naive and maybe asking a question asked before;
> I have been away from active participation on this list for quite
> some time.  I have done a lot of google searching and can not find
> any answer to the question of why is Gentoo 2006.1 the latest
> release?

Yes, this has been discussed in a number of places before here. Try in
the forums.

>  What happened to the quarterly releases?  The mailing list
> is still active, but the lack of a current release seems to indicate
> that the Gentoo project is no longer truly active.
 
You are confused about how gentoo works, it is not based on releases.
Just sync and you have all the latest stuff at your disponsal, to use
it as you wish. Profiles are nothing important in which regards having
an updated distro. They are useful for other purposes, though. For
example, different architectures and special functionalities like
SELinux. If you sync everyday you will see that there is a lot of
activity in portage, and the forums and lists are active as always,
bugzilla is alive, the community is alive, and, being this a
community project, I think that your claim is totally unfounded, and
plain wrong.

-- Jesús Guerrero

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list