What exactly happened to stage 1? And bootstrapping?

Iced-Tux · Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: Whats up with the HANDBOOK??

Hi everyone out there.
What the hell happend to the overwhelming-accurate-you-never-feel-alone-at-every-step-through-your-gentoo-installation-handbook?
Why are there no more sections for stage1/2 installations? The things that make gentoo stand over other distros.
A shame really.

So you gentoo-maintainer.... PLEASE give "n00bs" the chance for a guided stage1 installation......

_________________
!! The road to hell is full of good intentions !!

Monkeh · Veteran Joined: 06 Aug 2005 Posts: 1656 Location: England

'n00bs' shouldn't be DOING stage 1 or 2 installations. :roll:

opqdan · Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: Whats up with the HANDBOOK??

codergeek42 · Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject:

Merged Iced-Tux's, Monkeh's, and opqdan's posts, above, with this thread.
_________________
~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF

sundialsvc4 · Guru Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 436

The fact that you can compile everything from the ground-up does not mean that you want to. If you're determined to build a Gentoo system absolutely from the ground-up, I'm sure that it's still possible to do that... and such masochism is usually un-deterred.

But seriously, it actually makes a whole lot of sense to be able to just grab a pre-compiled binary, and save you and your system possibly days of entirely-pointless labor if that labor will simply "get you to a well-defined and common starting point." The choice of "whether you want to or not," should be yours.

Personally, I'd like to see a readily available on-line archive of pre-compiled files for various architectures, all merged into the Portage system so that I can either compile the source, or download and install the equivalent binary for my CPU-type, all at my option. There are times when I want to do one; and other times when I want to do the other; and even to do both of them together so that I have both the latest source and the product thereof, without actually having to compile it all. (ZZzzzzzz....) It should be my choice, reflecting whatever is most convenient for my situation (whatever that may be).

"Help Avoid Redundant Effort."

If there is any single point where "compiling from source" is most beneficial, it is: the kernel and the core libraries. The farther "up" you get from that, toward applications, the less critical and the less beneficial source-compiling becomes to many of us. So again, it should be an option. The system owner's choice.

A computer certainly can become hot ... the chip can be hot enough to fry an egg! Many computers (especially laptops) are not thermally designed to dissipate the heat that they can generate when stressed. Because in normal operation they never are "stressed." Their idea of a "busy day" is a PowerPoint presentation. It's not sound engineering practice, but it's cheap and it's certainly done. It might be fine to "heat up" your system a little bit sometimes, but let's be frank ... not always! That shouldn't be your only option.

Paapaa · l33t Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 955 Location: Finland

There should be a FAQ describing the TRUE differences between various stages. People seem to think that stage1/2 could be used to optimize more or to use USE flags differently than stage3. Some people seem to think that the system has more installed packages (is more bloated) after stage3 install than when starting from stage1/2. FAQ should tell:

1. Why there are different stages and what do they do - in detail. "Bootstrap" or "build the toolchain" is too vague. What is included in stage1 tarball, what is done in bootstrapping and in stage2, what packages are involved, what components form the toolchain etc.
2. In what situations is stage1/2 actually required.
3. What are the differences between the end results when starting from stage1/2 and starting directly from stage3. And in what situations there are no differences at all.
4. Is there anything you can do in stage1/2 which you can't do in stage3 later.
5. Is stage1 "broken by design" or are those issues (circular dependencies, for example) past.

And most importantly:

6. Describe the correct, fastest and most realible way to compile the whole system after altering CHOST, CFLAGS and USE flags. The method is probably different when done during installation than when done after installation when the system has been in use and "world" is populated. I've seen recommendation of using bootstrap.sh and "emerge -e system && emerge -e system && emerge -e world && emerge -e world" and some recommendations where "system" is replaced with certain package names. Which is suitable in which situation?

It should also be described if and why the toolchain and "world" should be built twice. And also if it is unnecessary.

It should be clear now that you can compile EVERYTHING with updated CHOST, CFLAGS and USE flags as many times as you wish and you will get as optimized system as you want no matter what stage you choose. (If the stage3 tarball exists, of course). We just need proper documentation that leaves no questions unanswered in this matter.

Yes, I'd do the FAQ happily but my knowledge in this matter is still way too limited.

warrens · Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject:

What does bootstap.sh give us? Here is what running bootstrap.sh --pretend shows will be installed.

This is how your toolchain is built using Stage 1. Does it work? Yes, it has for me in the past, however many other users have had trouble using bootstrap.sh. Is the the correct way to build the toolchain? IMO, no.

Now here is how the toolchain is built in LFS which IMO is the most correct way of building the toolchain.

Now this only gets you up to a Stage 2 equivalent setup. To finish getting to Stage 3 you would need to to this:

If you followed the LFS book you could take an entire weekend to get to a bootable system. IMO doing the LFS book takes to much of MY TIME, and doing bootstrap.sh and then emerge -e system does not build the system in the best way. So what to do? You could write your own script and use a lot of trial and error to make portage build your system LFS style (I figure that this could kill a couple of weekends), you could use Stage 3 setup your make.conf however you like then emerege -e system && emerge -e system (which is a better solution and takes about half a day), or do a Stage 1/3 install (IMO the best solution using portage tools and will take about a day). The way I see it is that LFS takes a lot of MY TIME and alot of COMTUTER TIME, not good. On the other hand a Stage 1/3 install takes a little of MY TIME and a lot of COMUTER TIME, much better.

So, do it how you want, but I will let the computer do all the grunt work and go have fun while it does.

_________________
The BIGGER the GOVERNMENT, the smaller the citizen.

DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!

My Bias #1
The best government is the government that governs least.

allucid · Veteran Joined: 02 Nov 2002 Posts: 1314 Location: atlanta

What's the difference between a Stage 3 -> emerge -e system && emerge -e system and a Stage 1/3?

ciaranm · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:06 am Post subject:

codergeek42 · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:09 am Post subject:

Ciaran, you have such a nice way of wording things.

_________________
~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF

warrens · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:19 am Post subject:

warrens · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:30 am Post subject:

Bob P · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:31 am Post subject:

warrens · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:43 am Post subject:

What I don't get is why gcc-3.4.4 is stable for amd64 and still in testing for x86?

_________________
The BIGGER the GOVERNMENT, the smaller the citizen.

DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!

My Bias #1
The best government is the government that governs least.

Bob P · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:46 am Post subject:

Bob P · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:49 am Post subject:

ciaranm · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:52 am Post subject:

omp · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:13 am Post subject:

scharkalvin · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:34 pm Post subject:

After reading this thread (head spinning, but slowing down) I think I almost
understand the advantage of a stage 3 install. Actually I never tried a stage 1
(well I did once but it never booted), I did do a few stage 2 installs. There does
seem to be a chicken and egg problem here though. In order to actually create
the stage 3 tarballs, you need to create a toolkit and basic system for that
arch, first. So you probably need to do the equal of a stage 1 install for that,
(not the end users problem though) right?

To answer a non-developers question, just what IS the magic behind the
emerge -e command? Yes I know -e means "empty tree", but exactly what
does that DO different from without the -e? Is it safe to change the compiler
flags for re-building the toolchain/system when you use the -e (and why)?
IE: I install from a stage3 x86 tarball and then rebuild after setting my flags
for say, a Pentium III derived Celeron?

What about if I wanted to build a tarball for a computer too slow to actually compile
it on? Such as, I'm running on a 2ghz athlon-xp, but want to build a stage 3 tarball
for a K6. (there are no K6 specific tarballs). I guess this is a cross compile?
If I wanted to do this on an Athlon64 system it sure would be!

Sven Vermeulen · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject:

When you use -e, Portage will rebuild all packages of which it believes are and should be on your system. That means all packages you have emerged yourself, their dependencies, and the system packages.

It is indeed best to use something akin of emerge -e world when you have changed your CFLAGS (although, after looking at this thread, running emerge -e system && emerge -e world should probably be a better option).
_________________
Please add "[solved]" to the initial topic title when it is solved.

EzInKy · Veteran Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Posts: 1742 Location: Kentucky