Starting from scratch?

Peasantoid · 2010-01-16 02:30:51

Has anyone here ever scrapped a working Arch install in favor of a new, 'clean' one? I know I've made some pretty piss-poor choices during this installation's lifetime, ones it would take a very long time to hunt down and rectify. Anyone else ever felt the need to reinstall?

milomouse · 2010-01-16 03:11:32

Yup. Done it many times in a weird sort of "purification" process where-by I completely wipe my drive and start over. I like doing it this way as I don't get too attached to my current system (I also keep backups of certain files/folders for reference, etc) and I also get to re-remember things I don't deal with once I get a system "completely" the way I want it. It's like a learning process with me where I get test new methods and play around and then "do it for real" the next time. I think I'd get bored pretty quick if I got a system completely the way I wanted it. Most of my time is spent on configuring, modding and testing rather than actually sitting back and taking it easy. Although like I said before I keep backups of important things, especially my programming bits and my many-many-many personal PKGBUILDs I'd hate to sit down and redo.

Allan · 2010-01-16 03:15:52

I have installed Arch twice on my primary computer. The first time was my first ever Arch install and the second time was because of a hard-drive failure.

toxygen · 2010-01-16 18:15:22

I'm thinking re-installs are mainly due to windows influence, the whole "purifying" thing sounds like something i would have said in the windows days. I've done two installs: when I first tried arch out, and 30 mins later when I realized i had repartitioned incorrectly, and rather than fix it within arch, i just reinstalled right away.
I had more reinstalls in kubuntu, coming fresh from microsoft, though, so I think it is the influence of the other OS.

now i think of the system as a good wok. layers and layers of something build up and make the whole enriched by flavor. YMMV though

Last edited by toxygen (2010-01-16 18:16:16)

mikesd · 2010-01-16 21:52:51

I think I originally installed i686 and then reinstalled x86_64. Since installing x86_64 back in 2008 I haven't reinstalled. I did once use a livecd to copy my install on to an external USB drive so I could convert my install to lvm.

brisbin33 · 2010-01-16 23:36:28

First original install, one reinstall to go to 64bit. Why eff with a good thing? that said, i'm super ocd about a neat filesystem and clean configs; i also periodically pacman -Q | less and see what i can scrap.

Last edited by brisbin33 (2010-01-16 23:37:43)

barzam · 2010-01-16 23:39:08

I don't like to reinstall. Sure it's fun and all but all the small changes (ls aliases, power saving settings etc) take lots of time to set up again. On Arch I really don't see the point, as has been said it's a Windows syndrome more than anything else that need to purify the OS.

Renan Birck · 2010-01-17 02:36:31

barzam wrote:

Sure it's fun and all but all the small changes (ls aliases, power saving settings etc) take lots of time to set up again.

If you separate your /home from /, likely you won't need to set those again.

As for reinstalling, I've done it only when I (accidentally) broke systems so bad I couldn't repair, or when I wanted to try other distro (just to get back to Arch...).

milomouse · 2010-01-17 05:54:03

I like to start with something that already works and slowly dismantle it until it no longer works. Then try and fix it even if I don't think I can. Yeah, I definitely miss Windows.

Mardoct · 2010-01-17 06:03:02

I've reinstalled for various reasons so many times I'm afraid the server I always use will just filter me out for using so much bandwidth.

JackH79 · 2010-01-17 06:57:01

Reinstalled only once to completely purge myself from Gnome and its dependencies in one big sweep. Was quicker than to search through all the dependencies that had accumulated over time. As I switched to other WMs and also other (non-Gnome) programs, setting everything up to my liking had to be done again anyway, so I didn't mind.
Worked like a charme
No regrets.

Last edited by JackH79 (2010-01-17 07:02:30)

ewaller · 2010-01-17 07:23:16

This is a good reason to keep the /home branch of your file system on a separate partition.

I have pulled the big handle on the OS several times -- replaced Gentoo with Arch, Arch with Gentoo, Gentoo with Arch on / -- never having had to touch my home directory (except for nuking the entire .kde4 in ~).

I also keep a hand written notebook to remind me how I solved install issues with my hardware in the first place.

Sertse · 2010-01-17 07:51:22

I have a tendency to reinstall when I want to switch DE/WM's, particularly if it's something like KDE/Gnome. Perhaps it's because when I switch I also like to have a "pure" version of that DE/WM, and I feel many of my other installed apps then seem "out of place". It's not so much of a problem going from xfce (which is what I'm on atm) -> *box since they are modular and I use the same (standalone) apps on both, but with something like KDE, with it's own suites for everything, also having those standalone apps sticking out make it seem "tinted".

madeye · 2010-01-17 09:19:08

I also like to reinstall sometimes. Not that I necessarily need to, it's just that I like to...

My main workstation has the primary harddrive in a removable frame, so I can change between different drives. That way I always have a working system even when I want to install another.
Virtualbox is good for some things, but sometimes I want to have a real machine test done for a distro.

Last time I reinstalled was about 2 months ago. I wanted to get rid of gnome and all dependencies, and didn't want to spend a lot of time on finding which programs I could remove. It was easier and quicker just to start over. And I made a handwritten log of the programs I installed, so I have a record of what I did.

Army · 2010-01-17 09:23:53

I did it several times, when I tried out all available file systems. Sure, I could have made a backup and copy it back to the partitions and adjust the fstab, but well, I like to have a clean install. And in those days I didn't have an external drive, so that wasn't possible for me.

Once I broke my system VERY hard, it was reparable, but a fresh install was much easier, so I did it.

toad · 2010-01-17 09:32:25

I had one reinstall 'cos of new hardware (32 to 64 bit). Current install only a year old.

However, pacman is getting slower... Tried pacman with the optimise option but that did not significantly improve performance.

Otherwise system runs perfectly

dahankzter · 2010-01-27 20:25:16

I agree with basically all of the above.

Rsync and /home on separate partition is really all that is required.
However, I don't think its really ever needed in this the best distro ever!

I really tried to switch to other distros (debian, fedora, gentoo and yes even ubuntu) but they all fall short!

arch0r · 2010-01-27 20:26:59

toad wrote:

I had one reinstall 'cos of new hardware (32 to 64 bit). Current install only a year old.
However, pacman is getting slower... Tried pacman with the optimise option but that did not significantly improve performance.
Otherwise system runs perfectly

try pacman -Syy, it will speed pacman up again

toad · 2010-01-27 20:40:57

arch0r wrote:

toad wrote:
I had one reinstall 'cos of new hardware (32 to 64 bit). Current install only a year old.
However, pacman is getting slower... Tried pacman with the optimise option but that did not significantly improve performance.
Otherwise system runs perfectly
try pacman -Syy, it will speed pacman up again

Cheers, will do once I'm back on my deskarch

dyscoria · 2010-01-27 21:20:52

Almost completely pointless for me to reinstall, but I do it every so often anyway because a fresh system gives me a warm fuzzy feeling and having installed arch multiple times in the past, I can do it pretty damn quick now

kjon · 2010-01-27 23:36:03

I'm too lazy to reinstall. I even screwed my desktop installation untarring a debian-arm install on my root, rendering my pc unbootable. I decided to tar my existing installation from my nc10, untar it back to my machine, change some files, give it a few kicks to make it boot and solved. !

But, in the case I need to reinstall, I prefer the unsupported method: I download pacman-static from... err... larch site (if I recall correctly) and then I use the magic '-r' parameter.

I use this method to invoke an "Arch beast" by drawing a blood pentagram on the floor and place the almost-dead pc on the center... mwhahahaha

Last edited by kjon (2010-01-27 23:38:27)

SemiBz · 2010-01-30 10:08:37

Yes, tough it wasn't Arch ( haven't yet fully switched ).

samuele.mattiuzzo · 2010-01-30 11:10:23

i never reistalled arch (almost 3 years of usage) even when i changed laptop (and architecture... from 32 to 64 bits...) i just moved the installation and everything goes very well

xangelux · 2010-08-29 18:47:05

The whole purpose of Archlinux is to have the system as clean a you want it so it is a bad habit to re-install things just to avoid "fixing" the mistakes that you did. There is always a path to follow when this happens. First, if the problem is configuration, the answer is always backup your configuration file and delete it (I prefer just move the file changing the name like file.conf to file.conf.bk ) and re-start the application. When the problem is the classic "I have installed a bunch of stuff and deps for those pack's and don't know what those are and they are lost somewhere on the system" You should read (And really read, not just a few lines) the man for pacman or the wiki, but just in case you need it again some time soon, first find the "orphans" (pack's that have no father pack,i.e. the ones that none needs) by typing

<code>
$ sudo pacman -Qt > orphans.txt
</code>

That command makes a list of your "orphans" and creates a file with that list. Then open the list and read the (long) list of pack's.

ATTENTION!!!! : DO NOT UNINSTALL ALL THE PACKAGES YOU SEE, IT WILL BREAK YOUR SYSTEM.

You can pass 1 or 2 hours using ' pacman -Rsn <package> ' package by package so you can see who needs every package. When you see something that you don't need, you just unistall it and if it complains about some other package needing it, you should be aware that you need to uninstall that one too. Before you uninstall one package you don't know what it does (in the case of uninstalling packages needed by others or whith weird names) google it so you be sure enough to uninstall it. This last warning is for you to notice, in that list of pack's is kernel26, your current kernel, so if you uninstall it, the next time you reboot you will not be able to start your system and you will have to do a bunch of stuff to re-install your kernel (if there is a chance to it).

Some tools that help a lot with this type of purge are awk, less, locate, grep and a text editor (I use VIM). If you want to use locate, it is under the name of mlocate on the repo.

I write this las lines because sometimes, when we uninstall the first time, we just do a pacman -R which leaves configuration files behind, so we should do pacman -Rsn so when it uninstalls something, removes the config files and the dependencies that package installed.

I think I will write a tutorial about this on my site. I'll get it ready in a few days.

karol · 2010-08-29 20:00:50

xangelux wrote:

The whole purpose of Archlinux is to have the system as clean a you want it so it is a bad habit to re-install things just to avoid "fixing" the mistakes that you did. There is always a path to follow when this happens. First, if the problem is configuration, the answer is always backup your configuration file and delete it (I prefer just move the file changing the name like file.conf to file.conf.bk ) and re-start the application. When the problem is the classic "I have installed a bunch of stuff and deps for those pack's and don't know what those are and they are lost somewhere on the system" You should read (And really read, not just a few lines) the man for pacman or the wiki, but just in case you need it again some time soon, first find the "orphans" (pack's that have no father pack,i.e. the ones that none needs) by typing
<code>
$ sudo pacman -Qt > orphans.txt
</code>
That command makes a list of your "orphans" and creates a file with that list. Then open the list and read the (long) list of pack's.
ATTENTION!!!! : DO NOT UNINSTALL ALL THE PACKAGES YOU SEE, IT WILL BREAK YOUR SYSTEM.
You can pass 1 or 2 hours using ' pacman -Rsn <package> ' package by package so you can see who needs every package. When you see something that you don't need, you just unistall it and if it complains about some other package needing it, you should be aware that you need to uninstall that one too. Before you uninstall one package you don't know what it does (in the case of uninstalling packages needed by others or whith weird names) google it so you be sure enough to uninstall it. This last warning is for you to notice, in that list of pack's is kernel26, your current kernel, so if you uninstall it, the next time you reboot you will not be able to start your system and you will have to do a bunch of stuff to re-install your kernel (if there is a chance to it).
Some tools that help a lot with this type of purge are awk, less, locate, grep and a text editor (I use VIM). If you want to use locate, it is under the name of mlocate on the repo.
I write this las lines because sometimes, when we uninstall the first time, we just do a pacman -R which leaves configuration files behind, so we should do pacman -Rsn so when it uninstalls something, removes the config files and the dependencies that package installed.
I think I will write a tutorial about this on my site. I'll get it ready in a few days.

'pacman -Qdt' can be helpful too.
I think 'pacman -Qi' will be better than 'pacman -Rsn' if you want to learn about the packages.
It's all in the manpages and the wiki, but feel free to add stuff you think is missing.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-01-16 02:30:51

Starting from scratch?

#2 2010-01-16 03:11:32

Re: Starting from scratch?

#3 2010-01-16 03:15:52

Re: Starting from scratch?

#4 2010-01-16 18:15:22

Re: Starting from scratch?

#5 2010-01-16 21:52:51

Re: Starting from scratch?

#6 2010-01-16 23:36:28

Re: Starting from scratch?

#7 2010-01-16 23:39:08

Re: Starting from scratch?

#8 2010-01-17 02:36:31

Re: Starting from scratch?

#9 2010-01-17 05:54:03

Re: Starting from scratch?

#10 2010-01-17 06:03:02

Re: Starting from scratch?

#11 2010-01-17 06:57:01

Re: Starting from scratch?

#12 2010-01-17 07:23:16

Re: Starting from scratch?

#13 2010-01-17 07:51:22

Re: Starting from scratch?

#14 2010-01-17 09:19:08

Re: Starting from scratch?

#15 2010-01-17 09:23:53

Re: Starting from scratch?

#16 2010-01-17 09:32:25

Re: Starting from scratch?

#17 2010-01-27 20:25:16

Re: Starting from scratch?

#18 2010-01-27 20:26:59

Re: Starting from scratch?

#19 2010-01-27 20:40:57

Re: Starting from scratch?

#20 2010-01-27 21:20:52

Re: Starting from scratch?

#21 2010-01-27 23:36:03

Re: Starting from scratch?

#22 2010-01-30 10:08:37

Re: Starting from scratch?

#23 2010-01-30 11:10:23

Re: Starting from scratch?

#24 2010-08-29 18:47:05

Re: Starting from scratch?

#25 2010-08-29 20:00:50

Re: Starting from scratch?

Board footer