Like I said before a Stable tree should be just that Stable. There is no reason someone should have to completely change to the Unstable branch when all of the programs that he / she wants are marked stable for that arch.
On 11/16/05, Mark Knecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/16/05, Benjamin Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2005 21:47, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > I'm not a developer and I've never done a Stage 1 install so I cannot
> > say for sure, but it's my understanding that after a Stage 3 install
> > most people end up rebuilding everything anyway within a few weeks.
> > Very soon my Stage 3 and your Stage 1 are identical. The Stage 1
> > allows me to get the machine up and running sooner.
> >
> > Just my take on the question.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mark
>
> True that the installations become identical very soon. But what if I set up
> server using stage 1 and an up-to-date portage tree. After the installation
> is finished it'll sit around doing whatever it's supposed to do and I don't
> really touch it except for security related updates.
> Just an example where stage 1 was a nice option. Taking away such an option
> doesn't sound all too much like the gentoo way to me.
Good points. I agree it doesn't seem like the Gentoo way to remove
options, however, in response to Derek's original point about rising
or fallign numbers of Gentoo new users it might be wise to make the
default install Stage 3, thus making the newest users most likely more
successful, and then create some (not so obvious) option to allow
folks like you that have good reasons to do Stage 1 if they want it.
I know not what I speak of as I cannot even imagine anymore why I'd
want to do a Stage 1 install, but I do assume all that work must have
some value to others.
Take care,
Mark
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
--
---------------------------------
Derek Tracy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
