You are not logged in.

#1 2012-05-03 16:06:00

Z0K4
Member
From: Split, Croatia
Registered: 2011-06-14
Posts: 17

[SOLVED] New Arch release?

Hi everyone... Anybody knows when does new (fully tested) Arch iso coming out?

I'm asking because today I downloaded 2 daily snapshots and on one of them I couldn't go past through the disk partitioning (not even automatic). The other one did go through the full installation (on disk partitioning couldn't do it manually, just auto which doesn't suite me at all because I'm dual booting), but I had problem installing GRUB... Tried to install it couple of times, unsuccessfully!

Installing the stable one is not the choice for me, because it is just outdated and (post)installation requires a lot of manual intervention!
Also if someone knows daily snapshot stable enough, please do send a link!

Thanks! wink

Last edited by Z0K4 (2012-06-11 18:46:07)

Offline

#2 2012-05-03 16:25:40

Gcool
Member
Registered: 2011-08-16
Posts: 1,456

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Perhaps consider simply using the netinstall iso? You'll be less likely to run into issues with outdated stuff that way (which is not exactly unthinkable with a bleeding edge rolling release distro).

Not exactly what you're asking, but just thought I'd mention it.


Burninate!

Offline

#3 2012-05-03 16:27:42

wonder
Developer
From: Bucharest, Romania
Registered: 2006-07-05
Posts: 5,937
Website

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

if you have problems with daily snapshots you should really really really report the bug.


Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Blog

Offline

#4 2012-05-03 16:44:20

the.ridikulus.rat
Member
From: Indiana, USA
Registered: 2011-10-04
Posts: 765

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Gcool wrote:

Perhaps consider simply using the netinstall iso? You'll be less likely to run into issues with outdated stuff that way (which is not exactly unthinkable with a bleeding edge rolling release distro).

Not exactly what you're asking, but just thought I'd mention it.

"Core" iso also allows "netinstall". So no need to use download the netinstall iso. And both the isos use the same setup script (same AIF version), so unless AIF is updated (for some issues), in some cases it is better to use packages in core iso and then update the system once it is setup.

Offline

#5 2012-05-03 16:47:06

Z0K4
Member
From: Split, Croatia
Registered: 2011-06-14
Posts: 17

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Gcool wrote:

Perhaps consider simply using the netinstall iso?.

Downside is that I want to install Arch on my laptop with notorious Broadcom B43 wireless chipset, and I don't have wired connection. But thank you for your suggestion! I think I'll ask one of my friends to let me use their LAN and give it a try... Cheers!

wonder wrote:

...you should really really really report the bug.

I would be glad to, but first of all... I'm not sure what is the bug actually, and secondly I don't know how/whome to report the bug. I just know that the first iso gave me error that i don't have partition assigned to "/" (even though i did), and second iso gave me error "GRUB installation failed" or "GRUB installation was unsuccessful" or something like that.

Offline

#6 2012-05-03 17:16:00

Gcool
Member
Registered: 2011-08-16
Posts: 1,456

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

the.ridikulus.rat wrote:

And both the isos use the same setup script (same AIF version), so unless AIF is updated (for some issues), in some cases it is better to use packages in core iso and then update the system once it is setup.

Care to elaborate on that? Both instances (core/netinstall) indeed use the same AIF, so what exactly would be the reasoning behind advising someone (when they have an internet connection available during the install) to use core instead of netinstall (genuine question, could be that I'm simply overlooking something)?


Burninate!

Offline

#7 2012-05-03 18:33:13

the.ridikulus.rat
Member
From: Indiana, USA
Registered: 2011-10-04
Posts: 765

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Gcool wrote:
the.ridikulus.rat wrote:

And both the isos use the same setup script (same AIF version), so unless AIF is updated (for some issues), in some cases it is better to use packages in core iso and then update the system once it is setup.

Care to elaborate on that? Both instances (core/netinstall) indeed use the same AIF, so what exactly would be the reasoning behind advising someone (when they have an internet connection available during the install) to use core instead of netinstall (genuine question, could be that I'm simply overlooking something)?

1. Since both use the same AIF version, there is no need to download another "netinstall" iso, when you already have a netinstall capable core iso. The capability to do netinstall is part of AIF, not of some script(s) exclusive to netinstall iso. So no need to download another iso and waste bandwidth.

2. Sometimes the AIF script might trail behind PATH (/bin to /usr/bin transition) and syntax changes (had this with Archboot in grub2's grub-install syntax between 1.99 and 2.00beta packages, with 1.99 in the iso and 2.00beta4 in the online repo) in packages in online repos when compared to the packages in the ISO. Most likely the AIF script should work fine with the packages versions in the ISO (even if the updated packages online do not work with the ISO's AIF script). In that case I would advise on installing the system using the packages from the core iso. After that, log inot the newly installed system and update packages normally using pacman.

Last edited by the.ridikulus.rat (2012-05-03 18:36:04)

Offline

#8 2012-05-03 19:06:07

Gcool
Member
Registered: 2011-08-16
Posts: 1,456

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

the.ridikulus.rat wrote:

1. Since both use the same AIF version, there is no need to download another "netinstall" iso, when you already have a netinstall capable core iso. The capability to do netinstall is part of AIF, not of some script(s) exclusive to netinstall iso. So no need to download another iso and waste bandwidth.

2. Sometimes the AIF script might trail behind PATH (/bin to /usr/bin transition) and syntax changes (had this with Archboot in grub2's grub-install syntax between 1.99 and 2.00beta packages, with 1.99 in the iso and 2.00beta4 in the online repo) in packages in online repos when compared to the packages in the ISO. Most likely the AIF script should work fine with the packages versions in the ISO (even if the updated packages online do not work with the ISO's AIF script). In that case I would advise on installing the system using the packages from the core iso. After that, log inot the newly installed system and update packages normally using pacman.

1) Absolutely. I formulated that quite poorly in my first post. No need to download it separately if you already have a netinstall capability obviously.

2) The "official" install iso doesn't support GRUB2 anyways (you have to use Archboot as you mentioned), so this really shouldn't be an issue. As for the "normal" core repo packages; I can't think of any package that'll be included in a base netinstall that would cause more issues vs an outdated local package. I would prefer having a user get all up to date packages right off the bat rather then spending a fair amount of time manually fixing a bunch of stuff because of outdated packages (prime example being the newsentries on the frontpage).

EDIT: fixing a stupid amount of typos.

Last edited by Gcool (2012-05-03 19:18:10)


Burninate!

Offline

#9 2012-06-09 12:28:08

dawidope
Member
Registered: 2012-01-13
Posts: 5

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

I've got one question. If I use a netinstall version, will I have a new filesystem, systemd-tools, netcfg and new pacman with all changes or will I have to apply any tips from news from mainpage of Arch?

Offline

#10 2012-06-09 13:07:09

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,407
Website

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

netinstall has all the changes automatically.

Offline

#11 2012-06-09 13:46:49

altbdoor
Member
From: KL, Malaysia
Registered: 2012-04-25
Posts: 128

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

i was about to create a same thread with the same purpose. with the recent major updates, especially on filesystem, systemd-tools and pacman, manual intervention from user is required. all these changes should be integrated and released as a new iso.

dawidope wrote:

If I use a netinstall version, will I have a new filesystem, systemd-tools, netcfg and new pacman with all changes or will I have to apply any tips from news from mainpage of Arch?

yes you will get the latest filesystem, systemd-tools, netcfg and pacman
but you may have to apply the necessary commands/actions as described from arch news.

Last edited by altbdoor (2012-06-09 13:48:10)


Lurking in newbie corner, helping with wireless problems.

Offline

#12 2012-06-09 13:52:23

Terminator
Member
From: Belgium
Registered: 2012-05-07
Posts: 265

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

No, you don't have to apply these commands discussed in the news (except for the pacman-key --init and pacman-key --populate archlinux). The netinstall downloads and installs the newest versions of the software. Thus, after installing you will have systemd-tools installed and not the old packages systemd and udev. If you install from the core-image instead of the net-image, you will have to apply these changes.

Last edited by Terminator (2012-06-09 13:53:02)

Offline

#13 2012-06-09 14:53:19

Shark
Member
From: /dev/zero
Registered: 2011-02-28
Posts: 663

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Few days ago i installed arch on some other laptop. I had partitionig problems as well where i was configuring mount points etc. Strangely, i reboot computer and again set mount points etc. and it worked.


If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them.
Henry David Thoreau

Registered Linux User: #559057

Offline

#14 2012-06-09 15:20:29

Terminator
Member
From: Belgium
Registered: 2012-05-07
Posts: 265

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Strange, I also installed arch linux yesterday using the net install image (I wanted to try some things and had unused partitions) and everything worked as expected.

Offline

#15 2012-06-09 20:28:17

Willie Green
Member
Registered: 2009-06-12
Posts: 70

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Well, it looks like this thread is close enough...

I'm getting ready to do a fresh netinstall, but I get very wary of doing it during periods of change where there may be discrepancies requiring manual intervention and what's on the current .iso and/or documented in the installation guide.

Any idea how long I should lay low until everything is in synch again?
Is there anything in the pipeline that's gonna bite me?
I've been around long enough to know that change is constant.
I'm just looking for a little lull in the action when I can safely jump back in.


"Some people march to a different drummer - and some people polka"

Offline

#16 2012-06-09 22:51:15

Jristz
Member
From: America/Santiago
Registered: 2011-06-11
Posts: 921

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Question: If arch-core and arch-netinstall are both capable of the same thing, download packeges and intall them from internet and intall them from the CD
what is the objetive of having 2 cd separated if tose both have the same capabilities???


Well, I suppose that this is somekind of signature, no?

Offline

#17 2012-06-09 22:57:21

Inxsible
Forum Fellow
From: Chicago
Registered: 2008-06-09
Posts: 9,071

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Jristz wrote:

Question: If arch-core and arch-netinstall are both capable of the same thing, download packeges and intall them from internet and intall them from the CD
what is the objetive of having 2 cd separated if tose both have the same capabilities???

core has the base and base-devel packages on the image while net install downloads from the net during install. Therefore the core packages will be older (circa the time the core image was generated for mass distribution) But getting the core installation where you have your basic network setup and pacman are the same on both images


Forum Rules

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots !

Offline

#18 2012-06-10 10:14:40

.:B:.
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2006-11-26
Posts: 5,819

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

There is no reason not to use a netinstall image, unless you have no access to internet or bandwidth limitations. If that is the case, using Arch is not such a good idea anyway.

The netinstall image will pull all packages from the internet, be it a recent or an old netinstall release. If you were to use a core image that was released e.g. yesterday, you would install the package from the image. However, a few months later, you'd probably be pulling all those core packages from the internet anyway.


Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy

Offline

#19 2012-06-11 02:29:10

Jristz
Member
From: America/Santiago
Registered: 2011-06-11
Posts: 921

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

oki doki loki

but for mee is redundant, you say is the same except for packages
in other words a unique disk conttraining the net-install AND packages may by the same as a have 2 cd
you add "unless you have no access to internet or bandwidth limitations. If that is the case, using Arch is not such a good idea anyway" making for mee a little dedundant having 2 cd if both functionalitis can be merged in one CD and "reduce" cd need to build from 6 to 3

but is my opinion and devs have the last word


Well, I suppose that this is somekind of signature, no?

Offline

#20 2012-06-11 04:35:48

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,831

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

There's a choice, the netinstall images are smaller sized downloads initially while the core images allow for an Arch install without net connection. This allowed me to install offline an image which I downloaded on a broadband connection (my own being much too slow). The initial install took the most time and thanks to the core image didn't require me to wait for downloads. Once the basic system was set up, I could then bring my laptop to a broadband-connected locality.

Since they're different, redundancy is very much in the eyes of the beholder....


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.

Offline

#21 2012-06-11 09:37:58

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,237

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Another point is that the core install image is very useful as  a rescuedisk.

Example : in case of boot problems that can be solved by chrooting into the existing install, this is easily done with the core install.

Personally i tend to use the netinstall FROM the core image, so i have both install and resuce disk functionality in 1 image.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2012-06-11 09:39:52)


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#22 2012-06-11 13:03:57

ANOKNUSA
Member
Registered: 2010-10-22
Posts: 2,141

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

ngonee wrote:

Since they're different, redundancy is very much in the eyes of the beholder....

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Personally i tend to use the netinstall FROM the core image, so i have both install and resuce disk functionality in 1 image.

"Redundancy" does have two meanings... wink

Offline

#23 2012-06-11 14:55:29

Awebb
Member
Registered: 2010-05-06
Posts: 4,307

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Indeed, people mark something as "redundant", as if it didn't have a positive meaning in the IT world :-D

Offline

#24 2012-06-11 22:12:21

.:B:.
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2006-11-26
Posts: 5,819

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Another point is that the core install image is very useful as  a rescuedisk.

What tools do you find are missing from the netinstall image then, I wonder. I only have netinstall images burnt/on USB stick, and I boot from them whenever my system is unbootable. Haven't ever run into anything that was missing there.

If you ask me, besides adapted install scripts and packages, there's nothing that differentiates the netinstall from the core image. I might be wrong about that though, but I have not noticed any differences in functionality.


Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy

Offline

#25 2012-06-12 11:35:02

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,237

Re: [SOLVED] New Arch release?

Not entirely sure what the difference is but i do remember a few laptops where i couldn't use wireless with the netinstall and had to use the core image instead.


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB