Arch Linux

student975

Member

From: Russian Federation

Registered: 2011-03-05

Posts: 613

keeping Arch - is it sufficient?

Following this article

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/En … d_Packages

I have prepared the script:

#!/bin/bash
cd /some/path/backup
sudo pacman -Qqe | grep -vx "$(pacman -Qqm)" > pkg-"$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)".list
sudo tar -cjf pac-db-"$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)".tar.bz2 /var/lib/pacman/local
scp * someuser@nas://nas/path/backup/ws

Is it sufficient to sleep well?

---

"I exist" is the best myth I know..

ngoonee

Forum Fellow

From: Between Thailand and Singapore

Registered: 2009-03-17

Posts: 7,356

Re: keeping Arch - is it sufficient?

Depends. What's your intention?

---

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

student975

Member

From: Russian Federation

Registered: 2011-03-05

Posts: 613

Re: keeping Arch - is it sufficient?

What's your intention?

Nothing special. WiKi recommends, I (being an Arch newbie) follow Have added /etc also.

Last edited by student975 (2011-03-29 10:36:43)

---

"I exist" is the best myth I know..

ANOKNUSA

Member

Registered: 2010-10-22

Posts: 2,141

Re: keeping Arch - is it sufficient?

That's still not too descriptive.  Those commands just create files that can be used to quickly install a system (nearly) identical to one that suffered a total failure--it's really just a suggestion and pretty much a last resort.  It's more effective (though more space-consuming) to back up sensitive data and clone the / partition regularly.  If a more stable system is what you want, update it less frequently, read Arch news and learn how to diagnose and downgrade problematic packages.

---

Linux != Windows  ::  Ask Questions the Smart Way  ::  Configs

student975

Member

From: Russian Federation

Registered: 2011-03-05

Posts: 613

Re: keeping Arch - is it sufficient?

I'm not sure will it be more descriptive or not: at case I (by mistake) or pacman or pacman wrapper (if bug) will break db, I'd want to avoid full AL reinstallation (from iso). I have not data which can not be restored (part is kept on NAS, part in CVS/SVN, ...). So I'm more interested in stable working environment rather in data keeping.

---

"I exist" is the best myth I know..

karol

Archivist

Registered: 2009-05-06

Posts: 25,440

Re: keeping Arch - is it sufficient?

That should be enough unless you experience hardware failure.

Another thing I would recommend: a liveCD for fixing the kernel.img. You can print the commands how to chroot properly or put them in a script.

student975

Member

From: Russian Federation

Registered: 2011-03-05

Posts: 613

Re: keeping Arch - is it sufficient?

Another thing I would recommend: a liveCD for fixing the kernel.img. You can print the commands how to chroot properly or put them in a script.

To cure an absence of AL-kernel multiversioning I have decided to have at least two kernels (I have added kernel26-ck, but kernel26-lts probably is more appropriate).

BTW, can anybody explain exactly what does "long term support" mean? In particular, does it mean all serious bugs fixings (like filesystems modules bugs) are backported in the lts kernel? And what is "long" equal to?

I see, too many questions. Sorry..

---

"I exist" is the best myth I know..