Mailing List Archive

R1: Already avaible in /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.3 ;)
R2: Yes but I don't find it very good, installation is too strange, and
use too

Hareesh Nagarajan wrote:

>Q1: Any idea when 2004.3 going to be released?
>Q2: Has any one tried Yoper?
>
>Thanks,
>
>

--
/* Beber : beber (AT) setibzh (DOT) com
* https://guybrush.ath.cx
* Using Mozilla Thunderbird on Gentoo Linux
* Rachel @ friends.paris
*/


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Beber wrote, On 29.09.2004 19:39:
> R1: Already avaible in /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.3 ;)

Do not use this profile yet. have a look here:


http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=1519634#1519634


bye Thilo


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

> Q2: Has any one tried Yoper?

Gentoo Zealots, Attack!!!
--
Free image hosting at http://www.rickserver.com

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed September 29 2004 11:08 pm, Rick Hennigan wrote:
> > Q2: Has any one tried Yoper?
>
> Gentoo Zealots, Attack!!!

Gentoo is my main distro, but I have installed Yoper on two boxes. I was
pretty well pleased with it, and it's really good if you are an rpm fan
(synaptic package management is great). The only problem I had was that the
qtparted partitioner is somehow crippled, so that I could only make swap, /,
and /home partitions on my boxes with winXP on hda1. IIRC, for some reason I
think it was only capable of making primary partitions (4). It also wouldn't
set up a /boot partition. Other than that, the V2.1 release is decent, and
shows a lot of promise- and is definitely faster than Mandrake, PCLOS, or any
other rpm distro I've ever tried.

Robert Crawford

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 23:08, Rick Hennigan wrote:
> > Q2: Has any one tried Yoper?
>
> Gentoo Zealots, Attack!!!

[.Oops, I accidentally originally sent my reply to Rick instead of the
list. Damn Evolution and its inconsistent ReplyTo behavior... I should
go back to Mutt.]

Yes sir!

YOPER SUCKS!

Just kidding. Actually, I tried Yoper on some spare HD space for about
10-15 minutes. On the plus side, it has a relatively quick and painless
install (of course, the fact that there's no package selection
contributes to that), and it gives you an optimized base system to start
from.

On the downside, Yoper's speed is greatly overhyped. It just didn't
feel like _that_ big of a difference to me. Also, though Yoper comes
with apt-get, and has the base for an easily upgradeable system... there
aren't many packages to choose from yet. Actually, I don't think Yoper
has any software other than what you get when you install. So if you
want to add more software (which you probably will), you'll probably
have to compile it manually, unless rpms or debs made for other systems
work with Yoper. But, ick, who would want to go looking for rpms or
debs....

Also, Yoper asked what kind of filesystem I wanted to use in the
install--which was nice--so I chose Reiser4 to play with it. Yoper's
installer only later, when the installation was almost over, pointed out
to me that Grub can't boot Reiser4 yet, and I'd have to use Lilo. I've
been using Grub for a while now and don't care for Lilo, so I
essentially had to restart the installation (though as I mentioned
above, the install was fairly quick anyway).

Overall it's not bad, and if it grows and gets more packages it could be
a sort of Debian-for-optimization-freaks. But I don't see any reason
why a Gentoo user would want to switch to it. One thing I can credit
Yoper for is motivating me to discover sys-devel/prelink.

Tom


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 17:46, Thomas J. Hamman wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 23:08, Rick Hennigan wrote:
> > > Q2: Has any one tried Yoper?
> >
> > Gentoo Zealots, Attack!!!
>
> [.Oops, I accidentally originally sent my reply to Rick instead of the
> list. Damn Evolution and its inconsistent ReplyTo behavior... I should
> go back to Mutt.]
>
> Yes sir!
>
> YOPER SUCKS!
>
> Just kidding. Actually, I tried Yoper on some spare HD space for about
> 10-15 minutes. On the plus side, it has a relatively quick and painless
> install (of course, the fact that there's no package selection
> contributes to that), and it gives you an optimized base system to start
> from.
>
> On the downside, Yoper's speed is greatly overhyped. It just didn't
> feel like _that_ big of a difference to me. Also, though Yoper comes
> with apt-get, and has the base for an easily upgradeable system... there
> aren't many packages to choose from yet. Actually, I don't think Yoper
> has any software other than what you get when you install. So if you
> want to add more software (which you probably will), you'll probably
> have to compile it manually, unless rpms or debs made for other systems
> work with Yoper. But, ick, who would want to go looking for rpms or
> debs....
>
> Also, Yoper asked what kind of filesystem I wanted to use in the
> install--which was nice--so I chose Reiser4 to play with it. Yoper's
> installer only later, when the installation was almost over, pointed out
> to me that Grub can't boot Reiser4 yet, and I'd have to use Lilo. I've
> been using Grub for a while now and don't care for Lilo, so I
> essentially had to restart the installation (though as I mentioned
> above, the install was fairly quick anyway).
>
> Overall it's not bad, and if it grows and gets more packages it could be
> a sort of Debian-for-optimization-freaks. But I don't see any reason
> why a Gentoo user would want to switch to it. One thing I can credit
> Yoper for is motivating me to discover sys-devel/prelink.
>
> Tom
>
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

Haven't heard anything good about Yoper install process other than
quick. If you wanted to go that route Arch linux might be a better
choice


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list