[SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

Zancarius · 2012-07-13 22:29:02

sitquietly wrote:

That's what I was expecting. The only way to install Arch now is to unpack a minimal pacman environment onto a clean partition, pull down the compiler and build tools with pacman, and then use abs/makepkg to build everything else including the kernel from source code. It's a lot cleaner than the old way.

I knew I switched from Gentoo to Arch for a reason!

(Okay, that was bad. I'm not very good at this.)

sitquietly · 2012-07-13 23:58:52

Zancarius wrote:

sitquietly wrote:
That's what I was expecting. The only way to install Arch now is to unpack a minimal pacman environment onto a clean partition, pull down the compiler and build tools with pacman, and then use abs/makepkg to build everything else including the kernel from source code. It's a lot cleaner than the old way.
I knew I switched from Gentoo to Arch for a reason!

The new installation technique makes Arch so much more fun that the devs are considering renaming it to FunArch. But you should not begin even this simplified chrooted installation process unless you have at least two hours available to resolve any problems that may arise.

Zancarius · 2012-07-14 03:20:21

You should consider yourself lucky I wasn't drinking anything when I read your post, sitquietly.

Jristz · 2012-07-14 05:42:03

and dont forget
grub become grub-legacy and grub2 become grub
this may mae MANY sistems brak post release them to core (now in testing grub-2.00)

For me, Release the new ISO days post Grub-2.00 reach core for prevent more breakages and unbotable systems

jasonwryan · 2012-07-14 05:59:02

I am not entirely sure how changing one of the bootloaders on the ISO would cause any breakage...

Jristz · 2012-07-14 06:23:16

jasonwryan wrote:

I am not entirely sure how changing one of the bootloaders on the ISO would cause any breakage...

install arch
reboot
update arch
not fallow none of the advises (or simply the las abut grub-grub2)
reboot
profit, if no use grub-install beffore uprade to grub2.0 you mbr remain as grub0.98 and unable to boot

but I think a simple post install that force a grub-install to the firts HDD solve it, or an reminder in post isntall
but you know moore law: if you spect any, you resive the contray...or any of these style

Allan · 2012-07-14 07:32:10

Except.... the grub2 packages are not called "grub" so the grub (v1) package does not automatically get replaced...

TuxLyn · 2012-07-15 07:31:21

@Bellum, LOL very funny...

@silly, I'll check it out.

@Trilby, You just started doing this ?

@ANOKNUSA, I useally use daily snapshots if I needed. It looks like they have fixed the daily snapshots at http://releng.archlinux.org/isos/

@brain0, It's working now, thank you for fixing it

@sitquietly, Yeah if you have time to do all that on multiple boxes sure.

@Allan, thanks for confusing as all with package naming LOL

Will try to use 2012-07-15 snapshot with usb-stick and install it on one of my boxes. Will report any problems. Thanks guys.

Last edited by TuxLyn (2012-07-15 07:32:47)

TuxLyn · 2012-07-15 10:08:18

Alright, it looks like daily snapshots is not generated for core images (just netinstalls).

Pierre · 2012-07-15 10:11:18

It's quite possible that we wont provide any core images anymore.

Allan · 2012-07-15 10:11:40

The core install just may be dying... or being put to death...

TuxLyn · 2012-07-15 10:26:41

@Allan, I hope not, this is horrible idea If you really will do this, please provide proper netinstall guide to beginners. Thank you.

Pierre · 2012-07-15 10:37:43

The install process does not differ whether you use the core or netinstall image.

TuxLyn · 2012-07-15 10:45:15

It kind of does, the first thing I've tried is /arch/setup and it does nothing.

Allan · 2012-07-15 10:49:22

So you are using the latest testing iso? There is no real installer on those... I think the instructions are given in the welcome message.

TuxLyn · 2012-07-15 10:58:07

Yes I'm using 2012-07-15 netinstall iso. Yes there is an instructions but it would be much better to have more detailed ones. Especially for people that never installed it this way, or at least a netinstall dedicated wiki page for it. Thanks.

Mr.Elendig · 2012-07-15 12:29:44

They are *test* isos for a reason, and are mainly ment for experienced users to test. As for a wiki page, create one!

Allan · 2012-07-15 12:59:29

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … ll_Scripts

TuxLyn · 2012-07-16 01:48:59

@Mr.Elendig, fair enought but I'm the one need help installing netinstall, what would I create ?

@Allan, thanks I'll stick to old iso instead.

progandy · 2012-07-16 02:18:32

// never mind, wrong button.

Last edited by progandy (2012-07-16 02:20:21)

yodermk · 2012-07-17 11:23:30

Another reason to update your installer images: The present "stable" media does not boot on Ivy Bridge. At least, it did not boot on my new build.

I got it installed with a recent daily snapshot, and it also worked from an unofficial Archboot download.

Would have been a bit simpler if the "official" media worked, but oh well.

I also hope your next official release media is tested with UEFI booting. Getting that working was fun!

Jristz · 2012-07-17 12:27:36

Core and netinstall become one
what happend if I need install w no internet in a machine? harch exclude me from they install prosess?? or the packages remain in the iso for (reinstall, or other situations??

Mr.Elendig · 2012-07-17 18:38:43

Jristz wrote:

Core and netinstall become one
what happend if I need install w no internet in a machine? harch exclude me from they install prosess?? or the packages remain in the iso for (reinstall, or other situations??

The system you get after a install from core is useless untill you get network up, or can copy in packages trough some other means anyway.....

If you really want you can download the sync db + the packages you want, copy the packages to the cache, and syncdb to the pacman db, and install everything that way.

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2012-07-17 18:39:49)

2011gil · 2012-07-19 18:17:28

yodermk wrote:

Another reason to update your installer images: The present "stable" media does not boot on Ivy Bridge. At least, it did not boot on my new build.
I got it installed with a recent daily snapshot, and it also worked from an unofficial Archboot download.
Would have been a bit simpler if the "official" media worked, but oh well.
I also hope your next official release media is tested with UEFI booting. Getting that working was fun!

I agree. UEFI may be a solution in search of a problem, but it is kind of cool to set it up. And it does feel much more elegant than the old way. Btw, I also installed on Ivy Bridge, and the official ISO did not work.

blackout23 · 2012-07-20 09:21:58

Mr.Elendig wrote:

Jristz wrote:
Core and netinstall become one
what happend if I need install w no internet in a machine? harch exclude me from they install prosess?? or the packages remain in the iso for (reinstall, or other situations??
The system you get after a install from core is useless untill you get network up, or can copy in packages trough some other means anyway.....

I agree. What I'd like to see is the official install isos becoming netinstall with some of the extra features that ArchBoot offers like easy SSD support through gdisk and UEFI. Never managed to get things running with the offical iso on my ssd even with the wiki.

With Archboot I simply chose GPT over MBR and it did everything for me even installed syslinux without having to dd it into the first sector of my ssd. It's simply better with partitioning and installing the bootloader and has zero disadvantages over the old Installation Framework, so why not make it official? Old AIF works for some people Archboot works for more (maybe all) people.

Last edited by blackout23 (2012-07-20 10:51:32)

Arch Linux

#26 2012-07-13 22:29:02

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#27 2012-07-13 23:58:52

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#28 2012-07-14 03:20:21

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#29 2012-07-14 05:42:03

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#30 2012-07-14 05:59:02

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#31 2012-07-14 06:23:16

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#32 2012-07-14 07:32:10

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#33 2012-07-15 07:31:21

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#34 2012-07-15 10:08:18

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#35 2012-07-15 10:11:18

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#36 2012-07-15 10:11:40

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#37 2012-07-15 10:26:41

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#38 2012-07-15 10:37:43

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#39 2012-07-15 10:45:15

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#40 2012-07-15 10:49:22

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#41 2012-07-15 10:58:07

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#42 2012-07-15 12:29:44

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#43 2012-07-15 12:59:29

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#44 2012-07-16 01:48:59

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#45 2012-07-16 02:18:32

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#46 2012-07-17 11:23:30

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#47 2012-07-17 12:27:36

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#48 2012-07-17 18:38:43

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#49 2012-07-19 18:17:28

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

#50 2012-07-20 09:21:58

Re: [SOLVED] Is Arch Linux ISO's no longer updated ?

Board footer