You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
#1 2005-01-22 03:04:45
- iBertus
- Member
- From: Greenville, NC
- Registered: 2004-11-04
- Posts: 2,228
Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
Just wanted to see what everyone was using to do a clean Arch install- v0.6 or the beta of 0.7.
Offline
#2 2005-01-23 04:53:50
- MNKyDeth
- Member
- From: MI
- Registered: 2003-09-13
- Posts: 89
Re: Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
I need to use 0.6 cause previous versions and 0.7betas don't detect my usb keyboard. For some reason only 0.6 detects it.
Offline
#3 2005-01-23 05:03:20
- LavaPunk
- Member
- Registered: 2004-03-05
- Posts: 129
Re: Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
I used 0.6 because I first installed around a year ago. This current install is from March though.
Offline
#4 2005-01-23 07:00:57
- iBertus
- Member
- From: Greenville, NC
- Registered: 2004-11-04
- Posts: 2,228
Re: Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
I first installed with 0.6 but that was last year sometime. After the 'big cleanup' of this past weekend I decided to install with the 0.7beta. Guess it really doesn't matter since Arch is a constant update style distro.
Offline
#5 2005-01-23 08:26:31
- iphitus
- Forum Fellow
- From: Melbourne, Australia
- Registered: 2004-10-09
- Posts: 4,927
Re: Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
i cant remember the last time i did a clean install
........
what? do you think i run an rpm based distro or something?
and my system is running better than ever too 
/me hugs his fast ck5 + reiser4 + configurable mouse polling + bootsplash kernel
iphitus
Offline
#6 2005-01-23 18:08:42
- LavaPunk
- Member
- Registered: 2004-03-05
- Posts: 129
Re: Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
iphitus: It's very easy to check. Just look at /var/log/pacman.log and you can see the first time you ran a system update. Assuming, of course, that you haven't removed that log sometime during your time on Arch.
Offline
#7 2005-01-23 23:43:59
- IceRAM
- Member
- From: Bucharest, Romania
- Registered: 2004-03-04
- Posts: 772
- Website
Re: Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
I've been wondering for the last few days wether Arch 0.7 beta works with udev and if it would detect my SATA partitions as /dev/sda1,/dev/sda2... etc.
What bothered me some time ago when I managed to break the boot process, was that booting from 0.6 would revert to the old scheme (compared to udev's) /dev/discs/disc0/part1... Lilo run under 0.6 does not see (because of missing udev) the "new" /etc/lilo.conf partition refferences. That's why I have to revert my lilo.conf, boot from the hdd and revert back to the new scheme.
I'd like to know if anyone knows anything about 0.7 dev naming scheme. It wouldn't hurt getting a fresh ArchLinux ISO if it would make my recovery work easier...
:: / my web presence
Offline
#8 2005-01-23 23:58:50
- iphitus
- Forum Fellow
- From: Melbourne, Australia
- Registered: 2004-10-09
- Posts: 4,927
Re: Arch v0.6 vs. Arch 0.7 beta
iphitus: It's very easy to check. Just look at /var/log/pacman.log and you can see the first time you ran a system update. Assuming, of course, that you haven't removed that log sometime during your time on Arch.
truthfully, i reinstalled once later last year in May. My first installation from a few months before was running out of hdd space because i had compiled too many apps..
Offline
Pages: 1