2008.04-RC Images are out

Misfit138 · 2008-04-16 20:13:05

Neotuli, do you have the memory requirements handy for the new isos? I would like to update the beginner's guide with the new information.

okar · 2008-04-16 20:54:36

is the grub splash new, I have never seen it before? I actually really like it^^

neotuli · 2008-04-16 22:07:47

Misfit138 wrote:

Neotuli, do you have the memory requirements handy for the new isos? I would like to update the beginner's guide with the new information.

http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-gen … 17153.html
Also see phrakture's response to that mail (next mail in the thread). Copying the whole image to RAM as he suggests in that mail probably won't be the default behavior though, since the cost in time used for reading the whole image off the disk as opposed to random accessing a small percentage of its data is likely to be significantly larger than the time savings for a typical installation session.

So basically, the memory requirements are... "if you cant boot the disk, you probably won't be able to boot arch either", beyond that, the memory requirements are up to you, and what you do.

If you want to derive a bare minumum value for getting an installation done... I'd say take my bare minimum for boot, add pacman's typical memory usage, plus the size of binaries like cfdisk and other things the setup script runs, then add some fudge factor and round up. Off the top of my head, I want to say 64MB (do they sell ram modules that small anymore?) should be *plenty*. Also, it's probably perfectly reasonable to just delete the section about memory requirements, since I think it's really an edge case that doesn't concern most people.

Hope that helps.

Misfit138 · 2008-04-17 01:08:48

neotuli wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Neotuli, do you have the memory requirements handy for the new isos? I would like to update the beginner's guide with the new information.
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-gen … 17153.html
Also see phrakture's response to that mail (next mail in the thread). Copying the whole image to RAM as he suggests in that mail probably won't be the default behavior though, since the cost in time used for reading the whole image off the disk as opposed to random accessing a small percentage of its data is likely to be significantly larger than the time savings for a typical installation session.
So basically, the memory requirements are... "if you cant boot the disk, you probably won't be able to boot arch either", beyond that, the memory requirements are up to you, and what you do.
If you want to derive a bare minumum value for getting an installation done... I'd say take my bare minimum for boot, add pacman's typical memory usage, plus the size of binaries like cfdisk and other things the setup script runs, then add some fudge factor and round up. Off the top of my head, I want to say 64MB (do they sell ram modules that small anymore?) should be *plenty*. Also, it's probably perfectly reasonable to just delete the section about memory requirements, since I think it's really an edge case that doesn't concern most people.
Hope that helps.

Thanks for the reply.
Actually, one of Arch's many selling points is the small minimum requirements of the installer cd's and it's nice to know that the requirements are as modest as ever. It goes hand in hand with KISS and "small is beautiful".

inf · 2008-04-17 19:16:53

I see the same problem with this iso than all the other releases i have been trying.

So the problem is with the ftp-install method and especially the network configuration part. I have a static ip which has to be set manually (dns, qw, netmask etc)

Everytime I try to put those information and after insertin them in the installer it tries to start the eth0 device but failes (no error in sight)

inf · 2008-04-17 19:37:09

IsSuE wrote:

Nice Grub and i like the options there. What I missed was "km" to select the keymap while installing.

Use loadkeys command

neotuli · 2008-04-17 19:55:16

inf wrote:

I see the same problem with this iso than all the other releases i have been trying.
So the problem is with the ftp-install method and especially the network configuration part. I have a static ip which has to be set manually (dns, qw, netmask etc)
Everytime I try to put those information and after insertin them in the installer it tries to start the eth0 device but failes (no error in sight)

you should manually configure your network using ifconfig. I dont know why our installer has a gui interface to ifconfig, but I'm planning on removing it sometime...

raul_nds · 2008-04-18 20:44:08

The new id's didn't work for me, I had to manually change them to plain old /dev/sda

other than that, smooth

Misfit138 · 2008-04-18 22:48:02

The 04 rc ftp iso is not working for me, no matter what I do. I configured my network successfully on both ath0 and eth0, but when installing packages I get:
"One or more packages failed to download. You can try again by re-selecting Install Packages from the main menu."

I will re-burn another and give it a go later.
Note that I can successfully retrieve the package lists, and ping any site on the web..just can't install.
I noticed there is no links browser on the live system. Is it included on the core ISO?

phrakture · 2008-04-18 22:58:51

Misfit138 wrote:

The 04 rc ftp iso is not working for me, no matter what I do. I configured my network successfully on both ath0 and eth0, but when installing packages I get:
"One or more packages failed to download. You can try again by re-selecting Install Packages from the main menu."

I will re-burn another and give it a go later.
Note that I can successfully retrieve the package lists, and ping any site on the web..just can't install.
I noticed there is no links browser on the live system. Is it included on the core ISO?

Ok, to be clear here:
The _iso_ works fine, but the _installer_ is failing, correct? This is important in helping us track down the bugs - is it the live cd or the installer?

Secondly, the installer should pump pacman output somewhere. Can you check to see WHY pacman failed to download the file?

Misfit138 · 2008-04-18 23:06:06

Ah yes, vc5 is telling me. I should have seen this earlier, sorry.

Syncronizing package database...
core is up to date
local database is up to date
resolving dependencies...error: cannot resolve "rsync", a dependency of "abs"
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: abs: requires rsync

It's that thing that Cerebral is working on, namely, moving abs to extra. My fault. Removing "abs" from the package list allows it to install all packages.

raul_nds · 2008-04-18 23:36:59

Never mind. Somehow there was an enter between the kernel line and the root line

phrakture · 2008-04-19 00:49:43

Misfit138 wrote:

Ah yes, vc5 is telling me. I should have seen this earlier, sorry.
Syncronizing package database...
core is up to date
local database is up to date
resolving dependencies...error: cannot resolve "rsync", a dependency of "abs"
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: abs: requires rsync
It's that thing that Cerebral is working on, namely, moving abs to extra. My fault. Removing "abs" from the package list allows it to install all packages.

Ah good call. Thanks for the info.

neotuli · 2008-04-19 08:09:58

arch3r wrote:

I tried to install the 04 rc core iso but couldn't find dmraid. Is it removed?
Thanks.

It just doesn't happen to ship with the disk (which can be changed). For now, you can run pacman -S dmraid on the livecd system.

faelar · 2008-04-20 11:56:24

OMG ! The last entrie in tools menu is AWESOME !

anakin · 2008-04-20 21:32:42

I've successfully tested the 2008.04-RC ftp iso, the change towards a live cd to host the install script is very much welcomed!

chilebiker · 2008-04-21 03:01:30

I don't know wether this has changed in the new ISO's:

I successfully installed Arch (ISO 2008-3-x) on my desktop and my old laptop. Both install were smooth, but on the laptop I couldn't get my wifi dongle to work due to the missing package "wireless-tools". I use ndiswrapper, and without the wireless-tools it wouldn't work. I had to copy that package from a backup. Shouldn't it be included in the base install?

praka123 · 2008-04-21 03:27:23

Just gonna try now! my last installation was deleted when I was out of station

Purch · 2008-04-21 05:20:20

Does anyone know howto put image to usb stick in vista? I tried to use FaunOS way without success. ( http://wiki.faunos.com/index.php/Make_a … on_Windows ) Are there other ways to do this in XP too?

wantilles · 2008-04-21 07:40:13

wonder wrote:

why do we use now UUIDs instead of sdX/hdX ?

This is no KISS philosophy.

This is an unfortunate first step towards complete ubuntization of Arch.

Part of KISS, is knowing what exactly happens on your system.

With UUIDs you do not know what happens.

An extravagant, useless, additional - and complex, not KISS - layer of information, gets between you and your system.

You do not know anymore how kernel truly enumerates disk controllers and their channels.

Shame on whoever is behind this.

Last edited by wantilles (2008-04-21 07:40:54)

anakin · 2008-04-21 09:50:04

wantilles wrote:

wonder wrote:
why do we use now UUIDs instead of sdX/hdX ?
This is no KISS philosophy.
This is an unfortunate first step towards complete ubuntization of Arch.
Part of KISS, is knowing what exactly happens on your system.
With UUIDs you do not know what happens.
An extravagant, useless, additional - and complex, not KISS - layer of information, gets between you and your system.
You do not know anymore how kernel truly enumerates disk controllers and their channels.
Shame on whoever is behind this.

You can read about this issue on the public dev ML on this thread:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev … 05597.html

ornitorrincos · 2008-04-21 10:55:01

wantilles wrote:

wonder wrote:
why do we use now UUIDs instead of sdX/hdX ?
This is no KISS philosophy.
This is an unfortunate first step towards complete ubuntization of Arch.
Part of KISS, is knowing what exactly happens on your system.
With UUIDs you do not know what happens.
An extravagant, useless, additional - and complex, not KISS - layer of information, gets between you and your system.
You do not know anymore how kernel truly enumerates disk controllers and their channels.
Shame on whoever is behind this.

with you know what happens in your system, but there is no way to know it if each time you boot the drives change the name(sda changes with sdc, sda, is hda, etc... and yes, that happened to me)

EmyrB · 2008-04-21 12:15:28

The RC is not working for me I am afraid I have tried it on 3 different PCs and I get the same results on all 3 PC's. I have even tried pulling down the iso from different mirrors and burning them afresh.

My main concern is that after I install the core via FTP I reboot and then pull down Gnome, Xorg, GDM and HWD plus relivant GFX card drivers, I then log into Gnome and begin to flesh out the install by going to terminal... it isn't listed anywhere! I have the option to use root terminal which asks for the root password and then nothing, no terminal

Anyone else have the same issues?

Cheers

EmyrB

toofishes · 2008-04-21 12:25:11

EmyrB wrote:

The RC is not working for me I am afraid I have tried it on 3 different PCs and I get the same results on all 3 PC's. I have even tried pulling down the iso from different mirrors and burning them afresh.
My main concern is that after I install the core via FTP I reboot and then pull down Gnome, Xorg, GDM and HWD plus relivant GFX card drivers, I then log into Gnome and begin to flesh out the install by going to terminal... it isn't listed anywhere! I have the option to use root terminal which asks for the root password and then nothing, no terminal
Anyone else have the same issues?
Cheers
EmyrB

What in this post had anything to do with the *installer* not working? Sounds like you got everything installed just fine and now you are having issues elsewhere.

EmyrB · 2008-04-21 12:38:20

toofishes wrote:

What in this post had anything to do with the *installer* not working? Sounds like you got everything installed just fine and now you are having issues elsewhere.

The exact same symptoms on 3 different PC's after installing Arch using the new 2008.04 RC ISO's downloaded from three different locations? Maybe the installer is not working as I used the FTP option on all 3. Maybe I should go and see if 'terminal' through a desktop environment works by installing the core from the CD. Oh and by the way, before you blame it all on Gnome 2.22 I have this installed on my main desktop PC which is Arch installed via the Don't Panic ISO's and both root terminal and terminal works just fine.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-04-16 20:13:05

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#27 2008-04-16 20:54:36

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#28 2008-04-16 22:07:47

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#29 2008-04-17 01:08:48

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#30 2008-04-17 19:16:53

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#31 2008-04-17 19:37:09

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#32 2008-04-17 19:55:16

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#33 2008-04-18 20:44:08

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#34 2008-04-18 22:48:02

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#35 2008-04-18 22:58:51

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#36 2008-04-18 23:06:06

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#37 2008-04-18 23:36:59

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#38 2008-04-19 00:49:43

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#39 2008-04-19 08:09:58

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#40 2008-04-20 11:56:24

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#41 2008-04-20 21:32:42

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#42 2008-04-21 03:01:30

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#43 2008-04-21 03:27:23

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#44 2008-04-21 05:20:20

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#45 2008-04-21 07:40:13

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#46 2008-04-21 09:50:04

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#47 2008-04-21 10:55:01

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#48 2008-04-21 12:15:28

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#49 2008-04-21 12:25:11

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

#50 2008-04-21 12:38:20

Re: 2008.04-RC Images are out

Board footer