Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-10-30 09:20:45

I wonder why there is little major progress in arch. Archlinux 0.7 is pending for ages. Gnome 2.6 isn't completed and not well planned, Gnome 2.8 is not touched at all. Localization is still weak in main packages, if they are not kde or gnome ones.

Wassup? Need some noobs help? Can I do something?

Dusty · 2004-10-30 22:23:04

Its getting on my nerves too, but the way I understand it, everybody's gone back to school and is a little too busy for Arch. 0.7 should definately be out by now. Oh and somebody should update the docs for 0.7 based on the feedback in the documentation forum. I'll talk to Dennis about that, I'm not sure what the rest of the devs are up to.

Dusty

xerxes2 · 2004-10-30 22:55:21

also kernel 2.6 series "sucks ass" and then the devfs vs udev stuff...

contrasutra · 2004-10-31 01:35:51

I don't think it really matters what packages are on the CD. It's just a base to get you up and running. You should be grabbing everything from the repos anyway.

I've already told Judd my opinions on this though.

neotuli · 2004-10-31 01:49:40

This is a point that has me pretty annoyed lately. This whole business of arch "releases". It's rolling release, so the releases are actually just SNAPSHOTS, they get outdated the day after they're released.
This release stuff confuses people to hell, I mean just look at the forums "I just installed arch 0.6" "i just installed arch 0.7" ...great for you...now update and it's the same as everyone elses, and not outdated.

suggestion If it wouldn't be too much trouble, can we just make one big bash script that makes install isos, then make it a cronjob that goes off once a day, or week, titling them 'snapshots', suffixed by the date. This way, people won't be installing ancient stuff and constantly complaining about stuff that's been fixed long ago. We should take the current release numbers and use that as the version for initscripts, which it already is, and the installer, and call them such. So "I used installer 0.7 with snapshot 30/10/2004", rather than "I installed arch 0.6". It's clearer, and more indicative of the way arch actually works.

Just my 2 cents on the whole installer matter...

skeeterbug · 2004-10-31 01:54:22

I know I'm pretty new here but I like the idea of a snapshot release - and it seems to me that it fits Arch a lot better than having a 'stable'. Stable releases are great for distros like Debian but Arch and to a lesser extent Slack are better off running '-current' which is what I think most Arch/Slack users run. MHO

Paul · 2004-10-31 05:28:28

Re: neotuli's suggestion

What a brilliant idea. You are one smart cookie.

Someone give this guy an award (or a cookie at the very least).

xerxes2 · 2004-10-31 13:28:35

snapshots has been discussed over and over again...
the simple answer to it is that it's not gonna happen because arch is made for running syued from mirrors, there is no need for snapshots,

skeeterbug · 2004-10-31 13:57:36

xerxes2 wrote:

snapshots has been discussed over and over again...
the simple answer to it is that it's not gonna happen because arch is made for running syued from mirrors, there is no need for snapshots,

Right, I understand that point but the part of the idea that I like is not having a full install cd snapshot - just the base iso. That way you can just grab the latest if you want to, install from it and have fewer things to upgrade / fewer pacnew/pacsave files to worry about etc.

But because as you say arch is designed to be syued if you didn't feel like getting the newest base snapshot you could always install from an older one and then pacman -Syu to current. It would be pretty easy to script - making a snapshot of the base iso I mean but I'm too new to bitch about it so whatever everyone else prefers is all good to me

ravster · 2004-10-31 14:17:40

Most of the people who say "I just installed arch 0.6/0.7 and I need some help with...." are people who have not read through the Installation Howto; it is clearly stated there for anyone who would care to look that

The newbie-friendliest method of installing Arch Linux surely is installing the base system and all you need to get online from the CD, and then run a complete system upgrade and add any other packages you want or need once you set up your internet connection.

There is nothing wrong with the current method, but it would be a good idea to have a sticky in the forum saying one and only one thing

Install arch from base of either 0.6 or 0.7 and then do 'pacman -Syu'. If you have any problems after that, post a new thread in the newbie section of the forums

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-10-31 14:54:25

The point is not 0.7, it does not really matter if a snap is called 0.7 ore so, I install via ftp, to fetch the latest stuff. But if a distribution uses releases, and there is no release for a longer period, it is a proof of problems.

How to help?

soniX · 2004-10-31 15:57:36

as long as -Syu works without problems, I dont feel we need a new release.
When we get to a point where there is a lot of work needed to successfully -Syu to current, then we need a new release. Perhaps that should have been done with udev... I dont know... Enabling udev wasnt exactly diffcult, and it didnt break devfs either...

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-10-31 20:57:29

... if no one else has a problem with that, it seems to be my personal one.

LavaPunk · 2004-10-31 22:55:32

I'm not sure why this is a big deal. Creating a 400+ meg base iso snapshot daily would take up a huge amount of space. New iso's aren't that big of a deal to me. I still use my original arch iso anytime I need to reinstall because as soon as I "pacman -Syu" its all up-to-date...

skeeterbug · 2004-10-31 23:03:05

LavaPunk wrote:

I'm not sure why this is a big deal. Creating a 400+ meg base iso snapshot daily would take up a huge amount of space. New iso's aren't that big of a deal to me. I still use my original arch iso anytime I need to reinstall because as soon as I "pacman -Syu" its all up-to-date...

It's not a big deal but why 400+ megs? The arch 0.7 base is only 197.3 MB. Just curious about that and actually I would think that when a new iso was created the old one would be deleted - seems to make sense.

Personally, I couldn't care less - if I cared I'd probably do it on my box since I keep a local rsync repository anyway. If there was one available I'd probably download it every month or so - of course that might increase bandwidth use.

edit: Hey, beta 2 of the 0.7 iso is out - that's almost related to this thread eh?!

LavaPunk · 2004-10-31 23:09:27

It's not a big deal but why 400+ megs? The arch 0.7 base is only 197.3 MB.

Whoops, I suck at pulling numbers out of thin air. Almost went with 200megs originally but decided against it... oh well guess that would have been a lot closer. Sorry.

skeeterbug · 2004-10-31 23:17:43

That's cool, beta 2 is a little bit bigger 200M+ so who knows, it could get to 400M before too long. I was just wondering if you knew something I didn't know about the isos. Anyway, all I wanted to contribute to this thread was that if someone was motivated they could do it themselves without too much difficulty; rsync your stuff and build the iso. I'm also kind of going off of the way I used to build slack isos:

ftp://slackware.oregonstate.edu/pub/sla … README.TXT

I know that some people used to do it for slackware but at least one project is dead:

http://128.173.184.249/ISO/slackware-current-nightly/

neotuli · 2004-10-31 23:24:02

On that note, I ain't doin it, but if someone's interested, the scripts and related files used to build the arch iso's are found in xentac's subversion system at http://xentac.net/svn/arch-jc/trunk/

Xentac · 2004-11-01 00:50:04

No... those are the scripts I used to use to build the arch-jc cds... they were never official and I stopped doing them because they got to be a lot of work and most of the changes were integrated into the official cd.

It just happened that when you asked about the script, I remembered it was in there.

Don't expect anything in that subversion repo to be helpful, I haven't touched it in a long time.

neotuli · 2004-11-01 00:55:32

Ack! my bad

skeeterbug · 2004-11-01 01:50:43

I thought things looked a little old on there - I guess unless Judd or whoever decided to share the current build info it wouldn't be that easy. If there was demand for it and the 'powers that be' wanted it I'd be willing to set it up and maintain it - I can't host it though. But so far I've not seen that much demand anyway - I think it'd be kind of cool but if only a few people would use it it's probably not worth the bother. Personally I can take it or leave it.

ScottTFrazer · 2004-11-01 19:40:00

If all you are looking to avaiod is the massive download right after the initial install, it might be better to just issue quarterly updates to the install CD.

Stop numbering them like releases and just call it "Arch 2004-4" and "Arch 2005-1"

Arch Linux

#1 2004-10-30 09:20:45

Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#2 2004-10-30 22:23:04

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#3 2004-10-30 22:55:21

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#4 2004-10-31 01:35:51

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#5 2004-10-31 01:49:40

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#6 2004-10-31 01:54:22

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#7 2004-10-31 05:28:28

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#8 2004-10-31 13:28:35

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#9 2004-10-31 13:57:36

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#10 2004-10-31 14:17:40

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#11 2004-10-31 14:54:25

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#12 2004-10-31 15:57:36

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#13 2004-10-31 20:57:29

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#14 2004-10-31 22:55:32

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#15 2004-10-31 23:03:05

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#16 2004-10-31 23:09:27

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#17 2004-10-31 23:17:43

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#18 2004-10-31 23:24:02

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#19 2004-11-01 00:50:04

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#20 2004-11-01 00:55:32

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#21 2004-11-01 01:50:43

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

#22 2004-11-01 19:40:00

Re: Archlinux 0.7? Gnome 2.8?

Board footer