Stop it, Please

Message

robet · Post by **robet** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:31 am

This is general plea to everybody that uses the forums... PLEASE stop putting Gentoo 2004.*, or anything like that, in posts, websites, signatures, etc. It does little but spread misinformation which confuses newcomers. There is NO SUCH THING as a "Gentoo 2004.3 System". Gentoo 2004.3 is nothing but an installation CD. A Gentoo Installation is not bound by the trivial considerations of space and time.
Thank you for your time.

RedDawn · Post by **RedDawn** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:38 am

Please think of the children............

FreeBSD rox0rs!!!!!!111111oneoneoene

Duck-Billed Platypus · Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:39 am

guess what. i have a gentoo 2004.3 system.

blaksaga · Post by **blaksaga** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:44 am

Haha, I've had to correct lots of people on this myself.

wswartzendruber · Post by **wswartzendruber** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:58 am

Then why is my /etc/make.profile symlinked to a file called 2004.3?

rhill · Post by **rhill** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:06 am

you're all wrong!

Code: Select all

root /etc # cat gentoo-release 
Gentoo Base System version 1.4.16

actually, how about people stop putting system stats in GENERAL in their sigs.

stonent · Post by **stonent** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:15 am

I have a /usr/portage/profiles/blah.blah system :0

MaxPolun · Post by **MaxPolun** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:19 am

dirtyepic wrote: actually, how about people stop putting system stats in GENERAL in their sigs.

concur. Anyone that feels the need to show off their system needs to take a look here.

stonent · Post by **stonent** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:21 am

It does on the off chance the other user has the same exact setup and maybe you could provide him/her with a config file.

madbiker · Post by **madbiker** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:29 am

wswartzendruber wrote:Then why is my /etc/make.profile symlinked to a file called 2004.3?

I *think* because that's what you installed from. Take a look at what's in that /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/200x.x/ directory. It all looks like stuff that would be used during the install, then ignored thereafter no?

gentoo_lan · Post by **gentoo_lan** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:02 am

There are different system profiles and they do need to be upgraded occasionally. People can have a 2004.3 profile but not a Gentoo 2004.3 OS...system or other garbage.

Q-collective · Post by **Q-collective** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:04 am

madbiker wrote:
wswartzendruber wrote:Then why is my /etc/make.profile symlinked to a file called 2004.3?
I *think* because that's what you installed from. Take a look at what's in that /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/200x.x/ directory. It all looks like stuff that would be used during the install, then ignored thereafter no?

Try delete your /etc/make.profile and find out I would say

Anior · Post by **Anior** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:52 am

Indeed, it's also annoying how people think that writing titles in all caps will make them appear as anything but retarded.

inha · Post by **inha** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:09 am

MaxPolun wrote: actually, how about people stop putting system stats in GENERAL in their sigs.

pentium 4 motherbitch, recognize and R-E-P-S-E-C-T.

Foobat · Post by **Foobat** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:09 pm

MaxPolun wrote:
dirtyepic wrote: actually, how about people stop putting system stats in GENERAL in their sigs.
concur. Anyone that feels the need to show off their system needs to take a look here.

is fun rolls loops actually up? i've heard some quotes from it but the website seems permanentlydown to me

robet · Post by **robet** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:05 pm

As per Anior's whining, title changed to non-caps.

rhill · Post by **rhill** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:27 pm

inha wrote:pentium 4 motherbitch, recognize and R-E-P-S-E-C-T.

all that raw unbridled processing power and yet nary a spellchecker in sight.

amne · Post by **amne** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:10 pm

Moved from OTW to GC as this has to do with Gentoo.

iTux · Post by **iTux** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:24 pm

Well, they should be allowed to write 2004.3 provided that they did not upgrade a single package after installing from the 2004.3 disks

iTux

Genone · Post by **Genone** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:50 am

iTux wrote:Well, they should be allowed to write 2004.3 provided that they did not upgrade a single package after installing from the 2004.3 disks

iTux

Or more precisely: they didn't update their copy of the portage tree.

MrApples · Post by **MrApples** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:44 am

i know what you are saying, but i dont feel its a very serious problem, but if you want to get technical, dirtyepic has the right idea

Athas · Post by **Athas** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:17 am

No, it's not a very serious problem as in "people misunderstand the problem." But it undermines Gentoo's role as a metadistribution, and fits it into the traditional versioning scheme. If you absolutely have to use a version number, use the one for baselayout or Portage.

masseya · Post by **masseya** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:28 pm

People have been misunderstanding the concept of a metadistribution for a long time. Check out this old school thread: About Gentoo 1.4...

(By the way, I didn't have to search for this one. It's topic number has been literally burned into my brain.)

curtis119 · Post by **curtis119** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:37 pm

Are people still going on about this? So many threads about it I can't count them all. Who cares what other people think anyway? If they start using gentoo then they will figure it out eventually.

MrApples · Post by **MrApples** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:29 pm

curtis119 wrote:Are people still going on about this? So many threads about it I can't count them all. Who cares what other people think anyway? If they start using gentoo then they will figure it out eventually.

well said, i definitely agree with this