Interested in Arch64

zebeste · 2009-02-04 23:59:24

Ok, creating a custom repo via the repo-add command nearly worked. After creating the repo I modified the pacman.conf file to recoginize it, and then I ran pacman -Syu. It said it detected an updated version of pacman, and asked if I wanted to install, and I did, and it worked. I then ran pacman -Syu again, it gave a list of files from the repository and asked if I wanted to update them. I confirmed then the next thing I know, I've got myself a list of errors in the form of

klibc: /path/to/some/file.h file already exists on filesystem

ended by the line:

Errors occured, no packages upgraded

What now? I notice their is a --force option for pacman, which looks like it might work, but not being 100% positive coupled with the warning in the pacman manual about it, I would prefer to wait for someone's input before trying it. Thanks

Surgat_ · 2009-02-05 00:08:20

I don't know, but in my system there are no regular files right under /var/lib/pacman. There are two directories: sync and local. local has inside one directory for each installed package (or it seems to), and some files inside each one: depends, desc and files, and install and changelog only in some of them (abs). sync has one directory for each repo and inside that another one for each package available, with two files: depends and desc.

Cheers!

zebeste · 2009-02-05 00:28:22

I actually decided not to do anything with the /var/lib/pacman directory because I'm not sure I need to.

cu3edweb · 2009-02-05 00:38:51

zebeste wrote:

Ok, creating a custom repo via the repo-add command nearly worked. After creating the repo I modified the pacman.conf file to recoginize it, and then I ran pacman -Syu. It said it detected an updated version of pacman, and asked if I wanted to install, and I did, and it worked. I then ran pacman -Syu again, it gave a list of files from the repository and asked if I wanted to update them. I confirmed then the next thing I know, I've got myself a list of errors in the form of
klibc: /path/to/some/file.h file already exists on filesystem
ended by the line:
Errors occured, no packages upgraded
What now? I notice their is a --force option for pacman, which looks like it might work, but not being 100% positive coupled with the warning in the pacman manual about it, I would prefer to wait for someone's input before trying it. Thanks

If you installed from the last available iso and are upgrading you need to follow this piece of news http://www.archlinux.org/news/411/

zebeste · 2009-02-05 01:57:34

Good to know, thank you

Rasi · 2009-02-05 07:11:47

zebeste wrote:

However, not being able to use the ATI proprietary driver is a deal breaker for me, and because I can't seem to get it working on fedora 10 (by default it doesn't even generate an xorg.conf file! So I had to manually create one), I have to abandon fedora.

Sure Arch Linux is for you? You have to create your own xorg.conf files too... and you even have to create all the other config files.

zebeste wrote:

I personally would like to try freebsd because I used it a little 4 years ago, however, I know the driver won't work on it. I'm now considering Arch64, because features such as fast and simple appeal to me. I am aware that I have to install through the command line, which is fine for me.

I have to guess, but i think you are confusing simple with simple. In Arch Linux simple doesnt mean "Sets things up for me" - it means that there is no big architecture around it to come in your way - which seems to be the opposite of what you want. Arch does not set up anything for you.

The other things you mention shouldnt be a problem. Well ATI's proprietary drivers are a problem in general, but you should at least be able to install them.

I dont want to hold you back, if you are willing to read the wiki and follow the instructions, i see no reason why you shouldn't use Arch - i just fear you have wrong expectations.

mikesd · 2009-02-05 10:31:29

zebeste wrote:

1) I have to be able to dual boot it with my already installed Win XP x64. I have one program that I need that I cannot use on Linux (I actually hope to port it myself, but I don't expect that to happen for a while). Given that the default boot loader for Arch64 is grub, I see no problems arising

If the application you require on Windows is not 3D graphics intensive or requires direct access to hardware, consider virtualisation. I'm running Arch x86_64 and use kvm [1] to run a Win XP vm. I even installed the beta of Windows 7 in a kvm vm with no trouble. I don't use Windows very often but this way I don't have to waste time rebooting just to use a Windows app. Virtual box would be another good option though I like kvm for its simplicity.

[1] kvm wiki page

zebeste · 2009-02-05 17:57:39

Rasi wrote:

I have to guess, but i think you are confusing simple with simple. In Arch Linux simple doesnt mean "Sets things up for me" - it means that there is no big architecture around it to come in your way - which seems to be the opposite of what you want. Arch does not set up anything for you.

I may not have been very clear, but that is what I meant. I tend to be very anal about keeping unwanted tasks from running in the background, and about organization and keeping everything clean in general. Fedora installed a lot of stuff that I could care less about. Arch allows me to pick and choose what I need and want.

Rasi wrote:

You have to create your own xorg.conf files too...

That was only the first problem I ran into, and it was fairly easy to fix with a little research. I have no problem with hard work as a long as I get a system that works how I want it to.

mikesd wrote:

If the application you require on Windows is not 3D graphics intensive or requires direct access to hardware, consider virtualisation. I'm running Arch x86_64 and use kvm

Unfortunately it is extremely graphics intensive, which is why I would probably have to port it to linux myself if I wanted to use it on linux. I've actually begun doing some research on linux specific programming topics so that I can, but realistically, it would be a huge undertaking and I don't totally understand the concepts behind the underlying technology.

mrunion · 2009-02-05 19:03:10

I'm curious -- what program is it?

zebeste · 2009-02-05 19:08:17

http://www.terathon.com/c4engine/index.php

I have a license and therefore have access to the source code, so if I really wanted to (and I do) I could port it.

Last edited by zebeste (2009-02-05 19:09:37)

zebeste · 2009-02-06 16:33:05

Just wanted to let you guys know that I managed to get arch updated . Now that I know how, it is really easy. Its just a matter of copying all of the files to a directory on the harddrive and setting the path to them in /etc/pacman.conf. Then just run Pacman -Syu.

Now to get the extras I need. The only problem is I'm not sure how to find out what their dependencies are...

Last edited by zebeste (2009-02-06 16:34:31)

mikesd · 2009-02-06 23:13:23

zebeste wrote:

Now to get the extras I need. The only problem is I'm not sure how to find out what their dependencies are...

Not sure I completely understand what you are doing here but if you want to find out the dependencies of a binary just do ldd /path/to/binary This will give you a list of libs that executable is linked against. You may need to google a bit to work out what package the lib is in. Most are fairly obvious. For example:

$ ldd /bin/bash
    linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fffb85fe000)
    libreadline.so.5 => /lib/libreadline.so.5 (0x00007fdab0086000)
    libhistory.so.5 => /lib/libhistory.so.5 (0x00007fdaafe7e000)
    libncursesw.so.5 => /lib/libncursesw.so.5 (0x00007fdaafc24000)
    libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00007fdaafa20000)
    libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00007fdaaf6cc000)
    /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fdab02c7000)

Arch Linux

#26 2009-02-04 23:59:24

Re: Interested in Arch64

#27 2009-02-05 00:08:20

Re: Interested in Arch64

#28 2009-02-05 00:28:22

Re: Interested in Arch64

#29 2009-02-05 00:38:51

Re: Interested in Arch64

#30 2009-02-05 01:57:34

Re: Interested in Arch64

#31 2009-02-05 07:11:47

Re: Interested in Arch64

#32 2009-02-05 10:31:29

Re: Interested in Arch64

#33 2009-02-05 17:57:39

Re: Interested in Arch64

#34 2009-02-05 19:03:10

Re: Interested in Arch64

#35 2009-02-05 19:08:17

Re: Interested in Arch64

#36 2009-02-06 16:33:05

Re: Interested in Arch64

#37 2009-02-06 23:13:23

Re: Interested in Arch64

Board footer