On Thursday 26 January 2006 23:07, MIkey wrote: > Jan Kundrát wrote: > > Great, there was a bug. Yeah, there was. Please notice the word "was". > > It means that it has been fixed and it isn't there anymore. So the > > problem got fixed. It's over. Finito. Period. Why are you still talking > > about it? > > Because Becker needed to be informed about it. I know it was fixed, I am > not bitching about it. I am merely pointing out that a stage3 installation > isn't quite so simple to support and is just as prone (more prone in my > opinion) to problems as a stage1 installation method. The main crux of > what I am saying is that it is, in fact, more error prone and takes longer.
Is it? There is no reason to perform a gcc update. While there are arguments for doing so, it is not needed. As such an unsuspecting user is less likely to break his system. Incorrect manual reading/following is however a big problem with stage 1 installs. They work, but they require you to either follow the instructions to the letter, or to really know what you're doing. With stage1 it's even more so that if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces. > > Do you have some problems with understanding an English text? It was > > already stated several times that upgrading GCC from fresh stage3 is > > *not* the same as in the live system. > > Where are they then? How are they different? You might want to let > someone else know. This is only a temporary issue. As upgrading a stage3 is just a special case of upgrading a fully live system the instructions still apply. Having separate instructions is probably more confusing and a waste of developer effort. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp4nMP5IepCB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
