larch-5.3 released

archlinuxsagi · 2009-03-24 10:24:24

farvardin wrote:

@yvonney: Why don't you just install a clean system with your favorite applications and settings, then use larchify? It'd be much easier it seems.

I believe creating a profile with overlays file is also possible. U don't need a clean install, mklarch will perform the "magic" for you.

gradgrind · 2009-03-24 11:34:41

I'm not really sure which of these points I'm supposed to answer ...

But one thing is clear: there is absolutely nothing from xfce in larch itself. Anything xfce related that you find must have come from the profile (or you put it there yourself).

And it really isn't necessary to get everything just the way you want it before you run mklarch or larchify. That's the advantage of the session saving - you can make changes on the live system, and it will often be easier than trying to plan everything beforehand. Especially while you are experimenting around.

If you really want to understand what's in .livesys you'll need to read the larch hooks (the code in the initramfs) in the larch-live package and have a basic understanding of how squashfs and aufs work.

farvardin:
About the iso name, I didn't think it would really matter what the iso was called, so it's hard wired in the script.
About the larchin bug, I need to know the output of those commands in order to find out what might be going wrong - it's not something I can test here because it depends exactly on the system in use.

gradgrind · 2009-03-24 12:31:55

If anyone is having problems with larchin, I would be grateful if you could test the latest versions of the larchin and larchin-syscalls packages. I have put them in a 'testing' folder (ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/larch/testing), as they have several untested changes, so they are a little less convenient to use. You can download them with

wget ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/larch/testing/*

and install them (also to a running larch live system) using pacman -U.

farvardin · 2009-03-24 19:03:23

Hello,

I've installed the 2 newest larchin packages. Now without partitions on the system, larchin halt correctly, telling there is no available partitions.

After adding a disk with a few partitions, I got this:

raceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/mt/larch/svn/larch5.3/larchin/pkg/opt/larchin/modules/gtk/guimain.py", line 252, in changed_cb
mainWindow.setStage(s)
File "/home/mt/larch/svn/larch5.3/larchin/pkg/opt/larchin/modules/gtk/guimain.py", line 161, in setStage
self.mainWidget = stages[stagename].Widget()
File "/home/mt/larch/svn/larch5.3/larchin/pkg/opt/larchin/modules/stages/finddevices.py", line 57, in __init__
File "/home/mt/larch/svn/larch5.3/larchin/pkg/opt/larchin/modules/stages/finddevices.py", line 79, in getDevices
ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack

Here is the result of some console commands :

sudo parted -l
Model: ATA VBOX HARDDISK (scsi)
Disk /dev/sda: 6111MB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos
Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 512B 57.6MB 57.6MB primary ext2 boot
2 57.6MB 329MB 271MB primary linux-swap
3 329MB 3479MB 3150MB primary ext3
4 3479MB 6103MB 2624MB primary ext3
cat /proc/partitions
major minor #blocks name
8 0 5967872 sda
8 1 56227 sda1
8 2 265072 sda2
8 3 3076447 sda3
8 4 2562367 sda4
7 0 574188 loop0
7 1 4 loop1
sudo fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 6111 MB, 6111100928 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 742 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 7 56227 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 8 40 265072+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda3 41 423 3076447+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 424 742 2562367+ 83 Linux

(I'm writing from the livecd right now...)

Last edited by farvardin (2009-03-24 19:09:18)

gradgrind · 2009-03-25 08:36:00

farvardin:
Thanks for testing. I haven't found anything yet, I need some more information. Could you run larchin again please and press the 'Reporting' button. This needs to be on the system where the bug appears (when there are partitions on the devices but the error message still appears). Then send me the content of the reporting window, and also the ouput of 'parted -l' on the same system (if you are doing it in a German locale please do 'LANG=C parted -l' instead).

farvardin · 2009-03-25 11:49:53

it will probably not be necessary, because I found the reason for the problem: I've started larchin from the menu, and it was trying to access partitions without root privilege...

Maybe another test to check from the script?

I'll test a full installation on a virtual drive soon.

gradgrind · 2009-03-25 12:53:14

farvardin wrote:

it will probably not be necessary, because I found the reason for the problem: I've started larchin from the menu, and it was trying to access partitions without root privilege...
Maybe another test to check from the script?

Aha! You're right, I should probably put a check in.

farvardin · 2009-03-26 06:18:56

Btw is it possible to save the current state of a live-usb while it's up and running, or is it only possible while the system is shutting down? Are there other way to save the session? (except saving on internet or the hard drive)

gradgrind · 2009-03-26 11:30:02

farvardin wrote:

Btw is it possible to save the current state of a live-usb while it's up and running, or is it only possible while the system is shutting down? Are there other way to save the session? (except saving on internet or the hard drive)

I haven't yet thought of a sensible and safe way of saving sessions while the system is up and running. Ideas are welcome. Certainly if one restricts what one saves it shouldn't be too difficult, but then you have the extra complexity of deciding what to save.

As to your other point, of course larchin must be run as root, otherwise it can't use the system utilities it needs to.

farvardin · 2009-03-26 12:15:52

maybe the whole system save should be kept as it is now, but a way to share a folder within the usbkey vfat system, if possible, would allow to really save documents when they are put into this folder, and access them even when the larch system is not running (from windows or another linux system for example). They wouldn't be compressed, of course, but with today's usb key capacity, it should be acceptable.

But maybe it's just impossible. I even tried to make 2 partitions on the usb key, but some computer won't boot if there is more than one partition it seems.

gradgrind · 2009-03-26 13:14:33

farvardin wrote:

maybe the whole system save should be kept as it is now, but a way to share a folder within the usbkey vfat system, if possible, would allow to really save documents when they are put into this folder, and access them even when the larch system is not running (from windows or another linux system for example). They wouldn't be compressed, of course, but with today's usb key capacity, it should be acceptable.
But maybe it's just impossible. I even tried to make 2 partitions on the usb key, but some computer won't boot if there is more than one partition it seems.

Really?! I didn't know that. I have two partitions on all my USB sticks. There must be no end of possibilities, e.g. keep the first as vfat data parttion for people who have to use other OSs, and boot larch from, say, the second formatted with ext2 (using grub). Of course you can also put data on the larch partition, you just have to remount it 'rw'.

smartboyathome · 2009-03-26 19:41:59

farvardin wrote:

maybe the whole system save should be kept as it is now, but a way to share a folder within the usbkey vfat system, if possible, would allow to really save documents when they are put into this folder, and access them even when the larch system is not running (from windows or another linux system for example). They wouldn't be compressed, of course, but with today's usb key capacity, it should be acceptable.
But maybe it's just impossible. I even tried to make 2 partitions on the usb key, but some computer won't boot if there is more than one partition it seems.

Check cfdisk to see if the vfat partition is labeled 'boot'. Some bios will refuse to boot this if the partition doesn't have the 'boot' flag set.

l3thal · 2009-03-31 13:43:20

whats the default root password or is it none also how can i specify one

again , i changed the the f_header () in /etc/rc.sysinit.larch and its not working , still prints " live cd based on archlinux " !

smartboyathome · 2009-03-31 16:36:35

l3thal wrote:

whats the default root password or is it none also how can i specify one
again , i changed the the f_header () in /etc/rc.sysinit.larch and its not working , still prints " live cd based on archlinux " !

There is no root password by default. You should create a test user on the host machine, give it the password you want for your LiveCD, then open up your /etc/passwd file and copy the encrypted password over to the livecd's /etc/passwd.

gradgrind · 2009-03-31 16:43:26

l3thal wrote:

whats the default root password or is it none also how can i specify one

If you're using mklarch, there is no root password by default. If you use larchin on a system you've built, then it's whatever you set it to (of course) - that might be the easiest way to specify one, or else set it on a live usb system and then do a session save. Other ways are a bit fiddly.

l3thal wrote:

again , i changed the the f_header () in /etc/rc.sysinit.larch and its not working , still prints " live cd based on archlinux " !

That's not surprising, the f_header () in /etc/larch-sysinit overrides this.

l3thal · 2009-03-31 17:27:08

errrr, you never mentioned that . but cool

ineed to investigate the script more but i too busy

thanks.

l3thal · 2009-04-01 04:11:59

i even changed the f_header() in /etc/larch-sysinit and i still get " Live cd Based on Archlinux " !

gradgrind · 2009-04-01 10:46:44

l3thal wrote:

i even changed the f_header() in /etc/larch-sysinit and i still get " Live cd Based on Archlinux " !

Could you explain in a bit more detail - what exactly did you do and in what order? I guess you must have changed it in the wrong larch-sysinit or at the wrong time, or something.

P.S. What did I never mention?

l3thal · 2009-04-01 14:10:46

i edited the f_header() in both /etc/larch-sysinit and /etc/rc.sysinit.larch

and after using mklarch to make the iso and trying it on VirtualBox i still get "live cd based on archlinux " and not them essage i specified !

gradgrind · 2009-04-01 14:32:48

l3thal wrote:

i edited the f_header() in both /etc/larch-sysinit and /etc/rc.sysinit.larch
and after using mklarch to make the iso and trying it on VirtualBox i still get "live cd based on archlinux " and not them essage i specified !

The question is how/where you are changing /etc/larch-sysinit. This is a file in the larch-live package, so if you are using mklarch, you would need to rebuild this package before using it. As you don't mention that, I assume you haven't done it, so I wonder which larch-sysinit you are changing??? Another possibility would be to put your modified /etc/larch-sysinit in your profile (see docs), or to use the larchify script, after you have installed using 'mklarch -a ...' and then changed /etc/larch-sysinit.

l3thal · 2009-04-02 04:06:38

alright , i got what you mean , but i have no idea why larch-live is installed on my system :\ , but anyway its works now

gradgrind · 2009-04-02 07:20:33

l3thal wrote:

alright , i got what you mean , but i have no idea why larch-live is installed on my system :\ , but anyway its works now

Glad to hear it.

farvardin · 2009-04-09 20:48:21

is larch compatible with the 2.6.29 kernel?
It seems the aufs package requires a kernel < to the 2.6.29

[edit : I've managed to build an iso, probably the aufs module is already build in the 2.6.29 kernel]

[edit 2: The iso is not working, I got: "squashfs error : major/minor mismatch, older squasfs 3.1 filesystems are unsupported...]

Last edited by farvardin (2009-04-09 22:23:56)

smartboyathome · 2009-04-10 01:34:48

farvardin wrote:

is larch compatible with the 2.6.29 kernel?
It seems the aufs package requires a kernel < to the 2.6.29
[edit : I've managed to build an iso, probably the aufs module is already build in the 2.6.29 kernel]
[edit 2: The iso is not working, I got: "squashfs error : major/minor mismatch, older squasfs 3.1 filesystems are unsupported...]

Squashfs was integrated into the main kernel tree with the 2.6.29 release. Because of this, the old squashfs filesystems are unsupported.

farvardin · 2009-04-10 17:44:11

so is there a solution at the moment to get larch working again?

Arch Linux

#151 2009-03-24 10:24:24

Re: larch-5.3 released

#152 2009-03-24 11:34:41

Re: larch-5.3 released

#153 2009-03-24 12:31:55

Re: larch-5.3 released

#154 2009-03-24 19:03:23

Re: larch-5.3 released

#155 2009-03-25 08:36:00

Re: larch-5.3 released

#156 2009-03-25 11:49:53

Re: larch-5.3 released

#157 2009-03-25 12:53:14

Re: larch-5.3 released

#158 2009-03-26 06:18:56

Re: larch-5.3 released

#159 2009-03-26 11:30:02

Re: larch-5.3 released

#160 2009-03-26 12:15:52

Re: larch-5.3 released

#161 2009-03-26 13:14:33

Re: larch-5.3 released

#162 2009-03-26 19:41:59

Re: larch-5.3 released

#163 2009-03-31 13:43:20

Re: larch-5.3 released

#164 2009-03-31 16:36:35

Re: larch-5.3 released

#165 2009-03-31 16:43:26

Re: larch-5.3 released

#166 2009-03-31 17:27:08

Re: larch-5.3 released

#167 2009-04-01 04:11:59

Re: larch-5.3 released

#168 2009-04-01 10:46:44

Re: larch-5.3 released

#169 2009-04-01 14:10:46

Re: larch-5.3 released

#170 2009-04-01 14:32:48

Re: larch-5.3 released

#171 2009-04-02 04:06:38

Re: larch-5.3 released

#172 2009-04-02 07:20:33

Re: larch-5.3 released

#173 2009-04-09 20:48:21

Re: larch-5.3 released

#174 2009-04-10 01:34:48

Re: larch-5.3 released

#175 2009-04-10 17:44:11

Re: larch-5.3 released

Board footer