headers
Xavier Neys | 1 Dec 2004 16:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: overview-dyn not showing up correct

Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
> I have a problem with the overview-dyn.xml page, it show up real strange
> in opera while www.gentoo.org shows up normal
> here's a screenshot:
> http://ewoud.csservers.nl/overview-dyn.png
> 
> ps, great job you did with the overview script

FYI, the overview "script" is an XSL transform. It generates GuideXML that is 
parsed by guide.xsl just like any other page on www.g.o
The right column is exactly the same as on other pages. I have no idea what 
makes Opera behave the way it does. BTW, Opera does not display the right 
column consistently on other pages either. Sometimes, it's right, sometimes 
it's a bit too wide, and on overview-dyn, it's really too wide.

I tried links2, w3m, elinks, lynx, firefox, mozilla, galeon, epiphany, 
konqueror & dillo. They all show the page properly.

Page is standards-compliant:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gentoo.org%2Fdoc%2Fen%2Foverview-dyn.xml&ss=1&verbose=1

Wkr,
--

-- 
/  Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/  French & Internationalisation Lead
\  http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en
/\
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sven Vermeulen | 2 Dec 2004 14:13
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Portage snapshot updates

Hi all,

On bug #68682 I've put two updates for the handbook which involves a change
of direction wrt the "emerge --sync"/snapshot stuff.

The last comment:

"""
The above two patches update the installation instruction so that:

  - each user unpacks a portage snapshot (either LiveCD or downloaded)
  - each user either runs "emerge --sync" or "emerge --metadata"
"""

However, the patches were written right before going to bed and even now
that I have slept enough nights, they're still my own writings (and you know
that debugging your own stuff is quite difficult :)

Could anyone take a look at the proposed updates? I'd like to incorporate
them asap.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

--

-- 
  Documentation & PR project leader

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden | 2 Dec 2004 15:30
Picon

hb-install-x86-kernel.xml

While I was translating hb-install-x86-kernel.xml, I came to the next part:

If this isn't the case (i.e. the symlink points to a different kernel
source) change the symlink before you continue:
(lines 87 & 88)

I think this should be something like

If the symlink doesn't point to the right kernel, you should change it to
the right kernel:

because this implies that it should point to linux-2.4.26-gentoo-r6.
maybe it's perfectly clear (I already knew it) but for the beginner who
read in the example that it points to linux-2.4.26-gentoo-r6 and then
reads "if this isn't the case" may think he's wrong while he is right

just my opinion

furthermore, is udev still not the default? by configuring your kernel
that way you are forced to use devfsd since automaticly mounting it at
boot makes the use of udev impossible (and I speak from experience)
shouldn't we at least point out that there is udev? (give the URL to the
conversion howto

--
gentoo-doc <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Xavier Neys | 2 Dec 2004 16:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: Portage snapshot updates

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On bug #68682 I've put two updates for the handbook which involves a change
> of direction wrt the "emerge --sync"/snapshot stuff.
> 
> Could anyone take a look at the proposed updates? I'd like to incorporate
> them asap.

Today, I'll be mostly interested in...
editing those patches.

--

-- 
/  Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/  French & Internationalisation Lead
\  http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en
/\
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Chris Gianelloni | 2 Dec 2004 19:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: hb-install-x86-kernel.xml

On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:30 +0100, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
> furthermore, is udev still not the default? by configuring your kernel
> that way you are forced to use devfsd since automaticly mounting it at
> boot makes the use of udev impossible (and I speak from experience)
> shouldn't we at least point out that there is udev? (give the URL to the
> conversion howto

Well, udev cannot be the default so long as a 2.4 kernel still is the
default.  Starting with 2005.0, udev and a 2.6 kernel will, in fact, be
the defaults.

--

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operational/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sven Vermeulen | 2 Dec 2004 20:53
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Stage3 better than stage1/2

Hi all

Rac pointed me to the following thread:
  http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=254119

In short, he advises to use stage3 even if you want to perform a stage1 or
stage2 so that you won't have issues with things like circular dependencies
(foo depends on bar which depends on foo) and files on your system that
aren't registered in Portage' DB.

If this is indeed the case, we might want to update our installation
instructions with this (rewrite completely or add it to the stage
explanations). I don't know how much of this is backed up, but I recon rac's
not that wrong ;)

Strange though that this hasn't been communicated to GDP beforehand (or is
my mind playing tricks on me again).

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

--

-- 
  Documentation & PR project leader

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Nick Dimiduk | 2 Dec 2004 22:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: Stage3 better than stage1/2


Sven Vermeulen wrote:
| Hi all
|
| Rac pointed me to the following thread:
|   http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=254119
|
| In short, he advises to use stage3 even if you want to perform a stage1 or
| stage2 so that you won't have issues with things like circular
dependencies
| (foo depends on bar which depends on foo) and files on your system that
| aren't registered in Portage' DB.

I've performed stage1 and stage3 installs on both x86 and ppc hardware
and have never encountered a circular dependency problem.
Theoretically, such problems should never arise because of the great
work performed by the RelEng QA people.

It is my personal opinion that the only benefit of stage3 over either of
the other two is that with stage3 you get an independent system faster.
~ From there, sync and update for the full "Gentoo Experience" (tm).  If
someone is having difficulty with a specific release, that should be
handled like any other bug.

Summary: I don't see a need for changing the Gentoo docs; they're (IMHO)
the best resource available to quick instruction in the ways of Linux.
Not to say problems don't exist or that we shouldn't address the ones
that do; just that I have never personally had this experience and that
if it is coming up, there are deeper problems in the Gentoo tree than
just the installation procedure.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Ciaran McCreesh | 2 Dec 2004 22:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: Stage3 better than stage1/2

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:09:33 -0500 Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk <at> gentoo.org>
wrote:
| I've performed stage1 and stage3 installs on both x86 and ppc hardware
| and have never encountered a circular dependency problem.
| Theoretically, such problems should never arise because of the great
| work performed by the RelEng QA people.

No no no. Releng don't control the main tree.

FWIW, there's at least one combination of USE flags that'll give you a
circularly broken bootstrap currently.

--

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Wendall Cada | 2 Dec 2004 23:01

Re: Stage3 better than stage1/2

There have been a few issues in the past with stage 1 and 2, these
should be handled via bug reports. These are generally very simple to
correct. I think what rac is trying to say is that if you want the least
number of problems, use stage 3. I think this is covered well in the
install documentation and he is just reiterating this in a different
way. You'd have to ask him for clarification.

Wendall

On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:38 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:09:33 -0500 Nick Dimiduk <ndimiduk <at> gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | I've performed stage1 and stage3 installs on both x86 and ppc hardware
> | and have never encountered a circular dependency problem.
> | Theoretically, such problems should never arise because of the great
> | work performed by the RelEng QA people.
> 
> No no no. Releng don't control the main tree.
> 
> FWIW, there's at least one combination of USE flags that'll give you a
> circularly broken bootstrap currently.
> 

--
gentoo-doc <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Martin Skjöldebrand | 3 Dec 2004 06:09

Re: Stage3 better than stage1/2

On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 20:53 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> Rac pointed me to the following thread:
>   http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=254119
>     
> In short, he advises to use stage3 even if you want to perform a stage1 or
> stage2 so that you won't have issues with things like circular dependencies
> (foo depends on bar which depends on foo) and files on your system that
> aren't registered in Portage' DB.

Only time I've seen this is with 2004.3 where automake depended on
autoconf, which depended on automake ...

What worked was doing an emerge of autoconf --nodeps, then continuing
with the installation.

Rgds,

Martin S

--
gentoo-doc <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane