installation problems (which i fixed)

hab1t · 2002-12-31 16:30:27

before you read this, know this : i really love arch linux. i think it's great, and i'm ever so glad you guys made it. i had some problems getting things going and i might sound bitchy but i realize that every distro has problems, and i want to help fix them. anyways.

1. gtk apps didn't have any fonts!?! i noticed during the install that the package pango-modulesconfig or some such, tried to execute pango-modules config and got an error about xft.so.something being missing. so there were no fonts in gnome or gtk apps, and i had a error about a missing file pango.modules or some such. so i ran pango-modulesconfig > /etc/X11/pango.modules, loaded X and all my fonts are there in gnome.

2. if you are like me, and some of you prolly will think "what a dumbass", but if you are like me and like to install EVERYTHING with a distro, you will find, only after a long long delay of about 10 minutes, that if you have selected everything, the package manager thingy will just die during install stating that there is a conflict between blackbox and fluxbox. you will not know this unless you have hit alt-f5 and are watching the install
also the install should say something about "this is going to take like 15 minutes to figure out all the dependencies of all these packages or whatever its doing" cuz i was sure it had crashed. but then i made some coffee and read a book and suddenly it started copying files

3. also you could make it so that groups of packages could be selected, or a 'full install' of packages, instead of hitting down-arrow-spacebar over and over and over and over and over...

4. the missing .config gile in the /usr/src/kernel dir really threw me off, i found how to get a config file from abs tho by reading the forums, but i think maybe you could just throw the default kernel config file from /usr/abs/kernel/config -> /usr/src/linux/.config ... just to make things easier when building ones own kernel. not a big deal, but not a big deal to fix either...

5. do you think you could add xinitrc to the list of files you can edit during the install process? that would be nice also then i could just add gnome-session or startkde to it or whatever and be all done with it.

ok that's all for me
other than that, kde 3.1 compiled for 686 is blazing fast and looks great runs great! everything i have compiled so far has compiled with absolutely no problems and i think the layout of the system is just grand. keep up the good work this is a great distro!!

apeiro · 2002-12-31 17:34:12

Thanks for the feedback. Stuff like this is really helpful!

Points 1 and 2 we already know about. They're those bugs that you notice right after you release the .iso, the "Doh!" bugs. :?

Point 1 can be fixed by running pacman -Syu, as the new gtk2/pango packages will do the post-install stuff properly. The problem was related to the ld.so.cache -- when Xfree86 is installed in the same pacman session as gtk2/pango, the ld.so.cache is not updated until after all packages are installed. So when gtk2 looks for the Xft libs in ld.so.cache, it doesn't find them and spits out an error.

Point 2 is still a problem and needs to be fixed. Does anyone know what's up with openbox/fluxbox/blackbox's bsetroot command? Are all three identical? If so, I can create a package that has only the bsetroot and bsetbg commands, then the three window managers can depend on that package.

Point 3 is a great suggestion. We're looking at possibly re-writing the installer for 0.5, so this "feature" would go in then.

Point 4 is likely moot. If you install the stock kernel, then /usr/src/linux is not a complete source tree (only the headers) and the .config file won't help you at all.

Point 5 is likely moot as well. When you are editing the config files in the install stage, there are not (yet) any non-privileged users in your new system, so there are no .xinitrc files to edit.

Hope this helps. Thanks again for the feedback!

scottro · 2002-12-31 18:21:47

Re the bbox, fluxbox thingie--no, I know that in Gentoo, you now can't install one without uninstalling another (that might be fixed actually, they usually get on things quickly there) It's a nuisance.

Hey,while we're talking about things--there's a great patch for fluxbox enabling you to bind the root menu to keystrokes- the patch is at http://kitaj.no-ip.com/files/fluxbox/

If I were any good at figuring out how to include a patch in a package (heh, I almost wrote ebuild) I'd do it, but I'm not good.

Scott

hab1t · 2002-12-31 19:02:14

what i like to do, which is maybe just me being weird, but when i get a new system installed like slackware or i was using rootlinux for a long time, it was nice to just go and build a kernel from the existing config file for my processor, the biggest reason is just that without that, you dunno what modules the system is gonna require during boot, or maybe YOU do, but i don't heh, and i'd rather just go

unzip new kernel
copy old .config file into new kernel dir
make oldconfig
hit enter a bunch of times
change processor type with menuconfig
make dep && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install
copy my bzimage to /boot/vmlinuzsomething
edit lilo.conf
reboot and everything just magically works

and now, ok, all i have to do is go run abs first and grab the config file from there
so now ill just hang onto the config file for when i build another system, or just run abs on that system...

another question would be, why not just include a full kernel? just space saving ?

again, no big issue, but maybe a convenience issue for some users.

the other thing was that i didnt know what abs was until i read about it on the forums here

sarah31 · 2002-12-31 19:25:57

actually you bring up an interesting point. i have broken my own system twice in the last few months (stupid typos). this past time i just stuck with the stock kernel. If on the other hand, if there was an option during the kernel selection process to compile your own kernel i think that i would be quite happy to do that as well. So maybe having the having a config file to work with would be beneficial for those of us who only make minor changes. and of course there is always the vanilla option too.

just something to consider

mordantly · 2002-12-31 23:53:55

but if that is done, u open a whole can of new worms. like say the user is fresh on the scene and doesnt know jack shite bout kernels or compiling so they run the risk of no kernel due to a dead one if problems arrise or like me where there were peculare kernel boot problems. or possibly making it a pain in someones ass to add some code to quiz whether or not u wonna compile than it needs to either set up everyhting so all one has to do is run the appropiate commands as instructed or let them figure it out and go find/install a version of source. or install the stock one if no is selected. but all in all its a damn fine idea.

sarah31 · 2003-01-01 02:53:08

i am not saying scrap that stock kernel at all. i am saying have the option to take the stock or compile your own. in the case of the latter it would be nice to have a config file to use if we like.

mordantly · 2003-01-03 01:32:20

pardon my confusion as i had misenterpreted ur post.

Arch Linux

#1 2002-12-31 16:30:27

installation problems (which i fixed)

#2 2002-12-31 17:34:12

Re: installation problems (which i fixed)

#3 2002-12-31 18:21:47

Re: installation problems (which i fixed)

#4 2002-12-31 19:02:14

Re: installation problems (which i fixed)

#5 2002-12-31 19:25:57

Re: installation problems (which i fixed)

#6 2002-12-31 23:53:55

Re: installation problems (which i fixed)

#7 2003-01-01 02:53:08

Re: installation problems (which i fixed)

#8 2003-01-03 01:32:20

Re: installation problems (which i fixed)

Board footer