ArchInstaller 2009.01

Dieter@be · 2009-01-29 09:29:54

Cosmin wrote:

is installing with ext4 possible with archlinux-2009.01-beta2-core-x86_64.iso?

Yes. it's a testing image though. Please report any issues you may find. (if not already reported)

Last edited by Dieter@be (2009-01-29 09:30:26)

Cosmin · 2009-01-29 10:11:37

Dieter@be wrote:

Cosmin wrote:
is installing with ext4 possible with archlinux-2009.01-beta2-core-x86_64.iso?
Yes. it's a testing image though. Please report any issues you may find. (if not already reported)

Sure I will report. Thank you!

tpct · 2009-01-29 13:48:58

tpct wrote:

Allan wrote:
From Aaron, today on the arch-releng list:
If all goes well, I'll build and release the final 2009.01 release on Wed or so.
So it looks like it will still be 2009.01
Wednesday, coolt .. I´m already sit and looking at my mirror and is about to boil over of impatience, while I just sit and press F5.

I sit still and wait, and now I'm really about to be mad ..

andre.ramaciotti · 2009-01-29 14:01:05

Relax, it'll be out at January 31st 11:59 PM.

mechmg93 · 2009-01-29 15:11:49

has anyone had any problems with the beta2 iso for amd64??

i just bought my new pc and want to install arch directly in ext4 partitons, that's why i do not want to stay with no distribution till the final release.

Ranguvar · 2009-01-29 16:30:03

I would install, test, fool around, then reinsall when the final's out.

Problems? Look at the bugtracker and mailing list linked in the news article.

@tpct: If you're that impatient, download the beta, or build your own - it's simple (lol). Or, if you're so mad, help them get it done.

nowahn · 2009-01-29 16:39:02

mechmg93 wrote:

i just bought my new pc and want to install arch directly in ext4 partitons

you can do it. see this thread

proxima_centauri · 2009-01-29 19:00:49

Just installed a fresh arch install using ext4 for / and /home with the beta2 iso.
Not sure if I messed something up, but the first time I installed grub would not load.
I thought it might have to do with grub+ext4 but I thought that problem was already addressed and patched.
Anyways, I created a logical partition with /boot and /, and formatted /boot as ext2.
It booted to grub and to arch.
Copied my backup home and system config files over, things working good so far

Dieter@be · 2009-01-29 19:48:34

andre.ramaciotti wrote:

Relax, it'll be out at January 31st 11:59 PM.

Only if we have 59 seconds to spare

jordz · 2009-01-29 19:58:33

mechmg93 wrote:

has anyone had any problems with the beta2 iso for amd64??
i just bought my new pc and want to install arch directly in ext4 partitons, that's why i do not want to stay with no distribution till the final release.

Grub doesn't get installed correctly on beta2, amd64.
More info: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 00137.html

Cosmin · 2009-01-29 23:17:41

Cosmin wrote:

Dieter@be wrote:
Cosmin wrote:
is installing with ext4 possible with archlinux-2009.01-beta2-core-x86_64.iso?
Yes. it's a testing image though. Please report any issues you may find. (if not already reported)
Sure I will report. Thank you!

The installer worked great for me but I didn't like so much kde 4.2 (matter of taste) so I am back to gnome, but kernel26 2.6.28.2-1 64bit and ext4 rocks

Thanks to all devs.:D

Last edited by Cosmin (2009-01-29 23:18:26)

agapito · 2009-01-30 00:27:51

I installed fine 64 bits but when installation finish and restart i have grub error. But fortunately i could boot with grub from my 32 bit installation on another hard drive.

Last edited by agapito (2009-01-30 00:29:32)

once · 2009-01-31 12:14:43

beta3 installed, but dmraid won't install into grub still.

dyscoria · 2009-01-31 14:07:56

Just wondering what the criteria was for replacing default grub with grub-gfx when installing it onto your system?

Doesn't really bug me that much but if a user wants graphical grub screen, that's just a 'pacman -S grub-gfx' away. Would also have avoided all the problems happening at the moment (IMO it was a bad idea to rely on a package from [community] for the installer).

kensai · 2009-01-31 14:13:15

If slackware added a graphic into lilo with their brandind, and we didn't thn we would have seem too archaic in my opinion.

Allan · 2009-01-31 14:28:12

dyscoria wrote:

Just wondering what the criteria was for replacing default grub with grub-gfx when installing it onto your system?
Doesn't really bug me that much but if a user wants graphical grub screen, that's just a 'pacman -S grub-gfx' away. Would also have avoided all the problems happening at the moment (IMO it was a bad idea to rely on a package from [community] for the installer).

Is that the grub that is installed to the system or just the grub that is used on the installer CD?

dyscoria · 2009-01-31 15:04:43

Allan wrote:

dyscoria wrote:
Just wondering what the criteria was for replacing default grub with grub-gfx when installing it onto your system?
Doesn't really bug me that much but if a user wants graphical grub screen, that's just a 'pacman -S grub-gfx' away. Would also have avoided all the problems happening at the moment (IMO it was a bad idea to rely on a package from [community] for the installer).
Is that the grub that is installed to the system or just the grub that is used on the installer CD?

Im only bothered about the grub installed to the system. Just to check if i'm mistaken, which grub does the installer install? I was under the impression from the ML that it was grub-gfx.

About the one used on the installer CD (not the one to be installed), im not bothered about (as long as it works of course ).

Last edited by dyscoria (2009-01-31 15:08:36)

Allan · 2009-01-31 15:09:02

dyscoria wrote:

Well i'm more bothered about the grub installed to the system. Just to check if i'm mistaken, which grub does the installer install?

I was asking you that! I am very much agree with you there.

dyscoria · 2009-01-31 15:18:59

haha!

hmm i'm not entirely sure which grub is installed though as i don't want to hammer aaron's bandwidth before the ISO is released to mirrors, but bug report filed: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13070

Allan · 2009-01-31 15:56:41

It was confirmed on the mailing list that grub-gfx is for the iso only and grub is being installed to the system. However, because of a bug in the install, grub-gfx is being installed to the MBR.

dolby · 2009-01-31 16:19:36

kensai wrote:

If slackware added a graphic into lilo with their brandind, and we didn't thn we would have seem too archaic in my opinion.

http://slackware.mirrors.tds.net/pub/sl … /slack.bmp
Uber leet image.

Last edited by dolby (2009-01-31 16:19:47)

dyscoria · 2009-02-01 11:04:03

Allan wrote:

It was confirmed on the mailing list that grub-gfx is for the iso only and grub is being installed to the system. However, because of a bug in the install, grub-gfx is being installed to the MBR.

Ah thanks for finding out

tpct · 2009-02-04 00:28:08

tpct wrote:

kensai wrote:
From experience, don't take my word as final, expect something for the end of the week or start of the next one.
Jaae, now I had just hoped it was true
But ultimately the only do they change it to 2009.02 as it looks now.

Well that ended up with it anyway to become a 2009.02 if not it ultimately becomes a 2009.03...

But okay, 'beta3' works ok, then it is fine. Although 'GParted' says that ones 'ext4' drive is a 'ext3 ' drive, but the error is to live with

jelly · 2009-02-04 08:18:28

just don't use gparted, use cfdisk

Dieter@be · 2009-02-04 12:55:52

tpct wrote:

But okay, 'beta3' works ok, then it is fine. Although 'GParted' says that ones 'ext4' drive is a 'ext3 ' drive, but the error is to live with

I guess that may have something to do with the partition type field in the MBR. feel free to report a bug

Arch Linux

#26 2009-01-29 09:29:54

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#27 2009-01-29 10:11:37

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#28 2009-01-29 13:48:58

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#29 2009-01-29 14:01:05

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#30 2009-01-29 15:11:49

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#31 2009-01-29 16:30:03

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#32 2009-01-29 16:39:02

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#33 2009-01-29 19:00:49

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#34 2009-01-29 19:48:34

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#35 2009-01-29 19:58:33

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#36 2009-01-29 23:17:41

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#37 2009-01-30 00:27:51

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#38 2009-01-31 12:14:43

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#39 2009-01-31 14:07:56

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#40 2009-01-31 14:13:15

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#41 2009-01-31 14:28:12

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#42 2009-01-31 15:04:43

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#43 2009-01-31 15:09:02

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#44 2009-01-31 15:18:59

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#45 2009-01-31 15:56:41

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#46 2009-01-31 16:19:36

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#47 2009-02-01 11:04:03

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#48 2009-02-04 00:28:08

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#49 2009-02-04 08:18:28

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

#50 2009-02-04 12:55:52

Re: ArchInstaller 2009.01

Board footer